Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape Riots

Runescape Riots

Runescape Riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod (well, not exactly, someone deleted the prod tag along with the rest of the article, and someone else figured that qualifies as a contested prod). List of incidents where groups of Runescape players disagreed with a change in the game. The only reference is the Runescape Wiki. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Snowball delete Sulking players typing obscenities = sulking players typing obscenities, unless you're involved and kid yourself it's something more. Without reliable secondary sources this has no place on WP. Someoneanother 13:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete-non notable web incident without any reliable sources KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 14:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Someone another..........and thanks for the laugh. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think about it, this kinda page can't have references because no one will right about it on the internet. So if you were there, then isn't that reliable enough? --24.40.134.221 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We need mulitple souces with non trivual coverage that not related to the subject to meet WP:N. Comments of people involved is not enough.--76.66.191.154 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge into Runescape if anyone thinks it's notable within a game e.g. player reaction to changes. 86.130.172.27 (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the bottom of the RS article (under player reaction or something) there's already a mention, with a 'citation needed' tag, therein lies the problem. Someoneanother 15:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• All right, let me ask you this. Why does this page need references? It's quite obvious that you won't find this type of information on the internet, because it is describing an event in a computer game. Would you expect to find that online somewhere? If so, then go give me a link. We should make this an exception just to once, to the rules of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, let me put it this way: The very fact that "you won't find this type of information on the internet" is reason enough to not have an article on this topic. In fact, it is the very reason why this article has been nominated for deletion in the first place. Wikipedia refuses to be a primary or secondary source about anything, so basically, any article here must be based on the kind of sources that, according to you, doesn't exist. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As for making an exception to policy just for this topic, the answer, of course, is no. However, there are several alternatives that you can consider. You could devote a MySpace page or a Facebook group to this topic. You could check whether what you want to write fits the Wikinews content guide. Those are just three options. You might find others, but it appears, at this point, that a Wikipedia article is currently not a viable option for coverage of this topic. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why do you people continue to enforce these rules, especially for an article that is well informed enough. Everyone in the world knows that Wikipedia is known for its lies already. Teachers at my school forbid students from using Wikipedia as a source b/c it has already been dubbed as "unreliable". In fact, I think that just a few months ago, there was a news article that was talking about Wikipedia's lies. My social studies teacher even said that Wikipedia once had Lincoln's killer's name wrong!

What you guys think your doing is trying to make Wikipedia seem a better source by enforcing these rules, when in reality you are really just making the people who love Wikipedia, (me), hate it. --Red Slayer 03:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Saying that there's no point enforcing rules on Wikipedia because it already contains misleading information is like saying that you might as well be racist because other people are. It's like a warped version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. On a separate note, we're not developing Wikipedia to entertain specific people but to create, as reliably as possible, an online encyclopaedia. I somehow can't see Encyclopædia Britannica deciding that any sort of sources are unnecessary as long as the people involved said it happened. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as wholly unsourced original reasearch. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Suggest transwiki to Runescape wiki, where it probably belongs. As to Valkyrie Red's comment, the fact that Wikipedia is considered unreliable is something we work hard at fixing, and enforcing those rules, strictly, is one of the means to that end. MLauba (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)