Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS &mdash;Wh o uk (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape armour
This is part of a guide on how to play RuneScape. The game's article is encyclopaedic. The community is debatably encyclopedic. Individual pages detailing how to manufacture armor are not. Wikipedia is most emphatically NOT a how-to guide - this is stated specifically in What Wikipedia is not - and as per precedent at Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (a - now-deleted - guide page for Command & Conquer, a far bigger game than RuneScape) this should be deleted. This is basically an abuse of Wikipedia's free hosting to allow people to host their GameFAQS-style guides elsewhere. I'm sorry if you really wanted to know that "Toktz-Ket-Xil shields can be purchased for Tokkul in TzHaar or acquired as an uncommon drop from TzHaar-Ket", but Wikipedia is really not the place for this information. I quake in anticipation of this AFD being subsumed by an angry horde of forum trolls. Closing admin, please ensure that you judge the discussion based on the strength of the arguments, and not by how many people bundle over and block-vote 'keep'. (Apologies to RuneScape people for assuming bad faith in advance, but I know what any kind of clear-up on gamecruft can end up resulting in). Strong delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Proto /// type  14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. -- GWO
 * Delete and transwiki to the RuneScape wiki. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is their license compatible with ours? - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, GFDL. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 09:28Z 
 * As Wikipedia is also GFDL, don't you think that if they wanted/needed this, they would have taken a copy already? Proto ///  type  10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No point duplicating unneccesarly, though some content has been lifted directly from WP (more likely when under threat), with or without attribution. If there is a more effecient way to do it, help is needed, as the majority there are enthusiast rather than wiki expert. The treatment also tends to be in more detail. Ace of Risk 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect A small summary about armour on the main RuneScape article would be better, just with a link to the knowledge base article(s) on combat instead of having all the how-to guide information. -- Agentscott00(talk contribs) 23:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of the best reasoning nominations I've seen in a while. - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:41Z 
 * Delete. Agreed on all points. --203.206.109.178 08:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This can't be sent to Wikibooks, this has nowhere to go but stay.J.J.Sagnella 14:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - that doesn't explain why you think it should stay. Proto //<B>/</B></I>  type  10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We have very carefully gone through this article and deleted any references as to how to make armours and advice on which armours to use when.  Admitedly, this is a struggle, as people do want to put that stuff back in, but I check it regularly (usually at least once a day) and remove the game guide stuff.  The article is on its way to being a concise listing and description of the armours available in RuneScape and a brief discussion of what they do.  It is no more game guide-ish than the main article, and it is much too long to incorporate back into the main article.  Moving it to WikiBooks would be better than deleting it, but I vote strongly for keeping it where it is.  Xela Yrag 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - A concise listing and description of the armours available in RuneScape, and a brief discussion of what they do, is exactly what should not be on Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. Proto <I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>  type  10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer - I disagree. A game strategy guide would tell a player how to obtain the equipment, how much it costs, how much it is worth, and how and when to use it.  This article does not do that (except when it is vandalized).  It is an encyclopedic description of the equipment available to players when they play the game.  Anyone who would use this information as a game strategy guide simply doesn't understand the concept. Xela Yrag 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - but telling you what armour is available, and where you get it from is not game strategy information? Because that is all this article contains.  The fact it may not be a complete strategy guide doesn't mean it is not a strategy guide.  Proto <I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>  type  12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer - no, I don't believe it is. It is a summary of what is awailable.  A game guide would have to tell you how, when, where, or why to use it.  In other words, a game guide would give advice.  This article does not give advice, no matter how hard the vandals try to make it do so.  It does not have strategy, such as "players should wear this armour or that armour when fighting this or that monster".  That is game guide information, to me.  Many articles about many subjects have lists of what is available.  For instance, an article about a record producing company might list the artists, but it is not giving advice just by that listing.  This article is as encyclopedic as any article about a game can be.  If it is deleted, then every article about every game on Wikipedia should be deleted, from the main articles to the sub-articles.  I mean MapleStory, Diablo, World of WarCraft, Final Fantasy, all of them.  Because this one is more encyclopedic that almost all the rest. Xela Yrag 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - and adjust to be less "guidey" as required - PS. the Wikibooks link is now BROKEN, as "StrategyWiki" is now the required destination and there does not seem to be a similarly automatic way to link, or RuneScape wiki is also a potential home - I fear linking to it from Wikipedia though, as it may also inherit the vandals. Ace of Risk 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - you have not given a single reason for why you believe the article should be kept. Proto <I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>  type  10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ok, why keep, because it works - RS attracts a lot of (over) enthusiastic editors, better to have them spread out logically. Personally, the effort WOULD be better spent at the wikia or strategywiki sites, instead of in delete wars here. Ace of Risk 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see a reason there why it should be kept. Proto <I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>  type  12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is too long to be merged with the main article. The information cannot be summarised. It was summarised when it was transferred from RuneScape items; this is as short as it gets without losing vital information. It is on a notable subject and is a valuable article. It is not a game guide. It provides information about armour, not a guide to it. Any guide-like text should be removed, the whole article does not need to be deleted! - • The Giant Puffin •  14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seriously, are you actually saying that it cannot be summarized? That mindset is why I stopped working on those RuneScape articles.  Frankly, there's just too much detail here which really can go to the RuneScapeWiki. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Once you summarise it you lose a lot of information, and it would take a lot of work to summarise it enough to fit on the main page, but make sure you keep the vital information - • The Giant Puffin •  16:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - an 'article' detailing the types of armour in a game, and where in the game it can be located is not vital encyclopaedic information. Proto <I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>  type  12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not detailed to the extent that it is a game guide. If you bothered to read Xela Yrag's comments above, you'd realise that. It does not give advice, does not tell you how to do stuff, it does not guide you. Simple as. It merely provides information, and I wish you and the people trying to mass-vote "delete per nom" (like that counts anymore than the mass-keep voting you warn the closing admin about) would realise it, and realise it soon. This is far more encyclopediac than many more game articles and is in a series that is being constantly improved - • The Giant Puffin •  13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. This is clearly a game guide and therefore clearly against policy.  As such, it should be deleted no matter the vote count for this reason as a violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Hardly gets mentioned in main article, as the purpose of this page was to shorten RuneScape and an article on a MAJOR section of the game hardly qualifies as as "Game Guide", therefor, WP:NOT Doesn't apply. Really no problem with it whatsoever, and if you have a problem with this statement, rant on My talk page. p00rleno 23:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - yet again, 'article' detailing the types of armour in a game, and where in the game it can be located is not vital encyclopaedic information; it is game strategy. Proto <I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>  type  12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, adjust where necessary to be less like a game guide. I suppose it could be combined into a unified items article aswell. Bear in mind, this cannot go back to the main article, as that is too long already. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - and the reason not to delete it is ...? Proto <I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>  type  12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - because it forms an important extension to the RuneScape series of articles. Whilst I don't think it is best keeping it in its own separate article (i'd much prefer a brief, unified, RuneScape equipment article), it is useful further reading for those interested in the subject. Besides, many other videogames have separate articles for equipment without causing any problem. Heck, StarCraft has articles for individual units. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The presence of a bunch of other articles that violate WP:NOT in the same manner (and I'm going to get around to them, don't worry) is - quite rightly - never a justification people tend to take seriously on AFD. Two wrongs don't make a right.  Proto <I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>  type  08:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But why are you going after RuneScape first? This series has 45 articles in total, including the Portal and its subpages. StarCraft has at least 200 (218 by my count). I thought there would be bigger fish to fry. Also, quickly reading WP:NOT, whilst I do see a rule against game guides, I don't see anything specifically against mentioning items in videogames. RuneScape armour doesn't seem especially game-guidedy either: for example, whilst Barrows armour, its requirements and the effects of different types is mentioned (which I admit is on the borderline), it doesn't tell me what I need to do to get it. I happen to know that the procedure is quite complex and demanding, and that procedure is certainly not mentioned here. I say someone should give it a good going over and cut anything too gameguidey, but certainly not delete the whole article. In fact, i'll have a go at that myself right now. CaptainVindaloo t c e 11:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Finished. How's this? Before, after, diff. A bunch of stuff I cut out from the end lives on in my Sandbox, should anyone wish to remove any gameguide elements and reuse it for something. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - Please take into account the reasons voted by RuneScape project members to keep this 'article' - claiming it is not a game strategy guide (when it is - just read the 'article'), it being too long to be merged (when it shouldn't be merged, it should be removed from Wikipedia), and that there's nowhere else for it (so what?) are not valid reasons to keep a game strategy guide on Wikipedia. WP:NOT subsumes all.  Proto <I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>  type  12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional note to admin - I agree, please do take into account the reasons for keeping this article. They are well thought out, reasonably argued, and passionate.  There is nothing offensive in this article.  It is a summary of the armours available in the game of RuneScape.  It does not give advice on how to use those armours to "win" the game.  It is encyclopedic.  Just because this information is not vital does not mean it should be deleted.  Wikipedia needs more information, not less.  But I strongly believe that if this article is deleted, all articles on games, whether online, sidewalk, board, or other, should be deleted with it.  Let's not discriminate against a poor little article about RuneScape just because someone doesn't like or understand the game, or doesn't care for games in general.  This article is as encyclopedic as any of the articles about any of those games.  Thank you for you time. Xela Yrag 15:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Proto's nom; this is self-evidently a game guide, and that's one of the things that WP:NOT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarcastic KEEP - Over time (15 hours of battle time), Barrows armours decay to an unusable state. When recovered from the crypts of the brothers, they are fully functional; the description at this point would read, for example, Ahrim's top 100. They degrade in four stages, from 100 to 75, to 50, to 25, to 0, at which point the description would read, for example, Ahrim's top 0. Barrows items do not lose strength as they degrade; however, at 0, they lose all defence bonuses. Degraded Barrows armours can be repaired by Dunstan in Burthorpe, by Bob in Lumbridge, by the smith at the pest control mini-game, or by the Tindel Merchant in Port Khazard. These repairs are rather expensive. The armours can also be repaired in POHs on a repair bench - this is REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND SHOULD NOT BE DELETED YOU SILLYHEADS, wikipedia is a vital source for this kind of information as it is a nencyclopedia and encyclopedias should tell us about how you can get your Barrows armors from Bob in Lumbridge. Who could think that this is not encyclopedia information, itis vital to the safety of the world. You might laugh but one day you will need ytour barrows armour, or you will need to know just that Mystic boots are an integral part of the mystic robes set. They are restricted to members, with the blue boots available for purchase in the Magic Guild and the white and black boots only available as monster drops, and then you will be screwed like a rabbit if you don't have this information. -- Zamaq 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "itis vital to the safety of the world"? I dont think you get the concept of an encyclopedia. It isnt to save the world, just provide information, which this article does. Although you may not find the information useful, it is useful to many people. Its on a notable subject. If you delete all the articles on stuff you dont need in your life, about 99% of WP wouldnt exist. You are not the only person reading this article. Please note that this user that claims to know so much about WP and how we should use it has less than 10 edits, none of which have been to an actual article. - • The Giant Puffin •  13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - We seem to be embroiled in a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes a guide and what is merely information. Since the nom has requested that possible vote loading be ignored, I would suggest that the nom's steamrollering also be ignored - are we heading for WP:3o? Ace of Risk 17:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is improtant information about Runescape and needs to be kept. Maybe a cleanup or some pictures would be helpful.--robertvan1 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can write an article called "Runescape armour" and have it be encyclopedic. Recury 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It may sound cliche, but DONT JUDGE AN ARTICLE BY ITS COVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! p00rleno 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I did read the article (some of it, anyway). What I meant was that the topic is not an encyclopedic one so it doesn't really matter how well-written and sourced it is, it is still an article on runescape armour. Recury 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton  (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Runescape game is well covered in Wikipedia so the detail provided here is not completely outrageous. Several other games have articles on items, e.g. Fire Flower, so I don't think this needs to be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:09, 28 June 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.