Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varrock (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to RuneScape .  MBisanz  talk 00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Varrock

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability, and if references to it can be considered notability, it goes into too much detail in the game, considering that there are no other articles on individual places within RuneScape.--Pig house (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Water down and Merge Delete and Redirect to Runescape. We don't need an article with that much detail on a city in a game. A quick check pointed out that there's no article on any city in Warcraft, so I don't see why we should have one for a city in a less-known game. — Ledgend  Gamer  22:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment on the article, but since when is Runescape lesser known than Warcraft? - Mgm|(talk) 23:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I should have said something along the lines of comparable to Warcraft, if anything at all. — Ledgend  Gamer  00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  | Talk 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The city is an important location within the game, but in the grand scheme of things is one of many locations within the game, and as a subject is quite minor. The only sources provided are an encyclopedia-like gameguide by Jagex, the company responsible for Runescape, and a JPG map of the Runescape game-world. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of (if not all) other references to Varrock will be in Runescape game-guides. I am opposed to a merge to the Runescape article, as this will be a call to deteriorate that article by flooding it (the only way to fairly represent all major in-game locations) with gameguide-like content. As a declared interest, I am a Runescape player. -- saberwyn 07:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind to delete and redirect; you raise a good point, if we allow the article for Runescape to be filled with information on every remotely important location in the game, it will quickly become diluted. — Ledgend  Gamer  23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and don't merge per Saberwyn Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and absolutely do not merge. Wikipedia is not a game-guide, and that's all this article is (along with a certain other article). As LedgendGamer points out, merging this article is just an invitation to shove every bit of game-guide material into the RuneScape article. As an active editor there, I can safely reject that idea.
 * I'm sure there have been other articles like this that got deleted. I wonder if anyone can find any discussions on those (so far, Talk:RuneScape isn't turning anything up in its archives, only the odd mention of a deleted page.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Merge, Delete, and Redirect to RuneScape - I'm not even sure why this discussion got this far. This is content that very clearly belongs in either the RuneScape article or in the RuneScape Wiki.--Unionhawk Talk Review 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I just checked the article, no useful information.--Unionhawk Talk Review 12:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- This article has been speedily deleted and recreated three times. Since it looks like this is going to be deleted again, it most certainly needs to be salted, otherwise, we have to go through this again...--Unionhawk Talk Review 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It was all under different criterion each time (once under G11 (advert), once under A1 (insufficient context), and once under G3 (vandalism per discussion here))--Unionhawk Talk Review 22:15, 9 April 2009 (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.