Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules lawyer


 * 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 of the debate was keep --Ichiro 20:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rules lawyer
Never likely to be more than a dicdef, already transwikied to Wiktionary. Andrewa 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Quarl 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please "always explain your reasoning." See Guide_to_deletion.
 * Keep. I went to this article, and I see more than just a dicdef. It must have expanded since it came on here. Zach (Smack Back) 22:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While considerably more than a dicdef, it is neither encyclopedic nor notable. WP:NOT a random collector of information., and rpgcruft is like rust, it grows while we sleep.  Thus, while I have used this term with derision many times, delete. -  brenneman (t) (c)  00:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Per request, I'll phrase that more civilly: It can be easy to mistake something that's really important to yourself as something that is really important to everyone.  There are some areas where this tendancy has been a problem with regards to wikipedia articles.  Pokémon, WWF, Harry Potter, etc.  In all of these cases it if often observed that the amount of material contributed by fans far outweighs that amount that is notable and encylopedic. -  brenneman (t) (c)  03:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. explains the concept extremely well. Provides reference and guide to further reading that I found very helpful. Seems just as valid as the other 52 articles in Category:Role-playing game terminology. RPG remains highly popular and part of our mission is to approach the subject in an encyclopedic manner. This article more than lives up to my expectations in that respect and I can only hope that these editors continue to contribute to wikipedia. -- JJay 00:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure cruft. Ambi 00:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey hey, my my, the plague of cruft will never die. Delete per Aaron Brenneman. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  02:37, Dec. 31, 2005
 * Keep, obviously an enclopedic topic since there are tips for dealing with them in a notable reference book. Kappa 03:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep unless a good target for a merge/redirect is found. -Sean Curtin 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment the problem, at least to me, is seems that it's a duplicate of an already-existant phenomenon... wouldn't it be better to delete and redirect to one of our other better articles here where it can be explained in context? WhiteNight T 03:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the deletion part would help. Where are you suggesting it should be redirected to? Kappa 03:33, 31 December 2005 (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.