Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilderness Updates - Runescape


 * 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. --Stormie (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Updates - Runescape

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

At first, I thought this article should be merged with Runescape, but the "riot" it talks about is unsourced, and this material may not be relevant even to the Runescape universe. Neutral, but leaning towards delete. Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 14:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not a Runescape player, so I'm not well-versed in its ways. However, a quick Google search reveals this, which suggests that the "Wilderness Updates" that are relevant to the Runescape universe are developmental, and not related directly to the game per se.  Barring that, the facts in the article themselves are dubious; from what I read on that page, the wilderness updates were somewhat different.  My uncertainty here leads to my next point, that the authoring of this article seems speculative.  In fact, the lack of any sources, plus sentences such as "This update caused a large number of protests, as for many the wilderness was the only fun part of Runescape" and "Bounty Hunter is all multi combat, which means it's very hard for players to fight 1v1 without being `teamed`", lead me to believe that this is nothing more than a pontification from a disgruntled player looking to get his ideas across.  As such, delete.-Thatotherguy21 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Runescape has information on this already, and that article is better sourced. This one suffers OR. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge (and DPOV) Rich Farmbrough, 15:08 29 December 2007 (GMT).
 * Delete per WP:NOR. Jonathan (talk • contribs • complain?) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as complete OR and POV. No need to merge, it already has a brief mention in RuneScape, and that's all it needs. Sure, the update upset a lot of players, but it is completely non-notable in the context of the entire game. There have been riots before in RuneScape, and I'm reasonably confident there will be again. If we start mentioning every incident where a few hundred players get together and start chat-spamming because of an update, we'll end up with more of a fan blog or a forum page than an article. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 20:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per PyroSpirit, there's nothing here that can't be covered in the RS article, and while the author has tried to remain neutral it still smacks of an annoyed RS player predicting DOOM. If any reliable sources have covered these updates then at least there will be some more secondary sources for the RS article. It'll blow over and half of the quitters will crawl back to play with the summon-monsters being released in January ;) Someone another (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete might deserve one or two lines in the main RuneScape article, other than that it's just cruft only runescape players would read, filled with WP:OR and probably violates WP:NOT.--Seriousspender (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article is unsourced and reads more like a speculative personal opinion essay. --- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - No one cares. User:Krator (t c) 14:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unsourced, POV issues.. useful information, if any, can be summarised in a couple of sentences. Una LagunaTalk 17:47, 30 December 2007 (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.