Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape misc
no solid reasons given for deletion. These are quite clearly not gameguides - the regular editors make sure of this. Percieved cruft is not a reason for deletion -  is an essay, not policy. I see no violations of /GL here. RuneScape gods|Articles on fictional characters :Category:Fictional characters|are encyclopedic. Gielinor|Articles on fictional locations :Category:Fictional locations|are encyclopedic (I'll cite Middle Earth, a former front page featured article on that). RuneScape skills|Skills and RuneScape combat|combat are the result of gameplay section splits over  concerns, so form part of the main article. The merge idea for these two can be dusted off, if necessary.  concerns are a reason for cleanup, not deletion, but I don't see a problem here anyway: official documentation, with the exception of critical reception of a game, is a perfectly reliable source. Finally, note how the closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape gods (fifth)|Gods 5 recommended no more AfDs for some time
— User:CaptainVindaloo, 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CRUFT||WP:CVG||WP:SIZE||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Fancruft)