Deletion of City (Thief)

Comment: as gamecruft.  is not a convincing argument
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: I'm going to have to agree with Splintercell007 here. We do forbid game guides, but emphasis here is on "guide". #GUIDE|The relevant bit is specifically about instructions, tips, strategies, et cetera, none of which is present here. There's nothing against content about things in video games - Master Chief (Halo)|we have that as ''featured articles''. Neither is this |OR by any definition. Although there's been a surprising amount of confusion over what constitutes OR, the page limits our scope to describing things, forbidding interpretation or original analysis. This article appears to contain only data that is apparent to the layman in the games themselves, which is specifically allowed in the policy. Forbidding the use of primary sources - the works - in writing about fiction is not a workable option. Have you ever tried to describe the plot of, say, ''Romeo and Juliet'' completely from reviews and analyses, without the actual play? Me neither, and I'd rather not do so in the future.And even if the article had OR or game guide content, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glory hole (sexual)|this AfD is nicely illustrative of the significance. It'll be fixed before the deadline, no worries. ;)What Splinter describes above is a valid |spinout, a common practice of spreading a subject over multiple articles when one can't adequately cover it. Cramming everything on a topic in one article can be a highly non-optimal solution. For examples of spinouts in use, refer to our article on the major country or capital of your choice. The relevant rule guideline is , which currently states that "sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style", as Splinter mentioned happening, and should be considered an extension of the original article. All in all, I see no problems with the article. "Cruft" when unaccompanied is no more than a statement of personal dislike, and I rue the word for giving such arguments a veneer of credibility. Finally: Yes, I do talk like this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:OR||WP:SPINOUT||WP:FICT)