Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionheart helm


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lionheart helm


Wikipedia is not a game guide. This is pure game-guide material. Therefore, this is not Wikipedia material. (Contested prod.) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and point creator to wowwiki.com. Demiurge 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete by WP:CSD 1.2-1&7 -- wtfunkymonkey 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Should probably be speediable as it doesn't assert noteworthiness; if not, WP:NOT applies. Shimeru 10:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 11:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete WP:CRUFT and not even the kind that people at least put an effort into. Now how much more of this World of Warcraft crapcruft is left here... MartinDK 12:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete but not for the reason of cruft (because WP:CRUFT is an essay, and one that does not describe WP policy at that) but instead WP:NOT and WP:SNOW. ColourBurst 03:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Now this is material which is a clear example of game guide content. Even if there was a page on Warcraft armor, this would be way too much. FrozenPurpleCube 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT a game guide. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.   RON   Let's talk  03:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete inappropiately detailed content. Andre (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Game guide as well as totally indiscriminate info. DarkSaber2k 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - not notable, not informative, not interesting, and not literate. Pete Fenelon 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.