Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:RuneScape/Did you know


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sean William 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal:RuneScape/Did you know
Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Does not have any WP:V sources. Names living people without reliable sources. Philip Baird Shearer 02:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep DYK sections are quite commonly and properly situated in portal space (toward which, see, e.g., our portal guidelines). Whilst the content here comprised suffers from sundry deficiencies, deletion is not a substitute for cleanup or other improvement.  Some of the items are quite appropriate as DYKs (although perhaps poorly formatted), and those may well be preserved; those that are preserved, to be sure, need not to cite sources explicitly: citations belong in the article(s) referenced, not in DYKs themselves. Joe 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It can just be cleaned up so it isn't so insanely long and pointless, DYKs aren't expected to have sources listed on them and it doesn't name living people. -Amarkov moo! 02:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Trent Reznor dead? --Philip Baird Shearer 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In which Wikipedia policy do you find that: "citations belong in the article(s) referenced, not in DYKs themselves" --Philip Baird Shearer 02:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if the citations do belong in the DYK, it's trivial to copy them over (and delete any which can't be referenced). -Amarkov moo! 02:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot/most of things on this page, which are not in the articles which they link to so it is not possible to copy any sources across because this is not an encyclopedic list--Philip Baird Shearer 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * sofixit. You're providing reasons why this must be cleaned up (which I agree it should), not deleted. -Amarkov moo! 03:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For example not one of the first half dozen "facts" can be verified against the links that they call. Take the fist one "that Fortunato, the wine seller, located in Draynor, is a character in one of Edgar Allan Poe's stories called The Cask of Amontillado?" Neither the EAP or TCoA contain the information that "Fortunato, the wine seller, [is] located in Draynor," --Philip Baird Shearer 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What on the page is encyclopedic? --Philip Baird Shearer 03:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean -- Ned Scott 05:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep perJoe as it is a portal. Also, this is a subpage, it would be more proper to propose on it's main page such as this: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:RuneScape GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms  07:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it is a sub page on a portal does not mean that it is not covered by Wikipedia policies. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Philip Baird Shearer's comment on Gspbeetle's vote and per Jahiegel. &mdash; $PЯING  rαgђ  17:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of the macros in the template when viewd from Portal:RuneScape it did not show this page but the page Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:RuneScape I have now fixed that but please leave this debate open for more days so that others can make their opinions known --Philip Baird Shearer 18:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, it isn't an article.  It's just part of a portal.  I don't personally think it's necessary to have a list of sources.  Some things in there are common sense or could be verified through the game itself and the things that they reference.  And if you do want sources in there, that isn't a reason for deletion. Dtm142 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All pages on Wikipedia that discuss none Wikipedia topics need sources. To date not one item on the page has a source or even a link to a Wikipedia article that is contains a citation to the fact mentioned in the "do you know" page. I put it to you that having such a page title encourages the inclusion of unsourced encyclopedic information, and I present the page contents as evidence of this. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:08, 30 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.