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. MBisanz ^talk 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonders in civilization IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable list of items that can be built in the computer game Civilization IV, doesn't have any references whatsoever. I came across the article right as the proposed deletion was contested; since I agree the article is non-notable, I went ahead and brought it here. Raven1977 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No out-of-game significance. RayAYang (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. About as useful as Landmarks in the Sim City Series by the same editor... Somno (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a listcruft. ApprenticeFan (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is this. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not siginficant whatsoever outside of the game, delete as listcruft. RedThunder 15:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Contributor may wish to expand at a specific gaming wiki (Wikia Gaming needs an Civ IV entry, for example); devoid of encyclopedic value. Marasmusine (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and turn into a table. It doesn't need to be independently notable, it's a valid spin off (a subarticle given an own page for space or presentation reasons). Wonders are a significant part of the game and including them in the game article would make the thing needlessly long. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE material. Brief mention of a few examples should be placed in the game's article. --MASEM 15:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If you look around, you *can* find coverage on different wonders here. A lot of reviews such as this mention wonders. Some give actual critical feedback, like "Most of the new Wonders weren’t all that impressive". Some go into detail on specific wonders, such as this review that says the Great Wall is "a pretty impressive sight considering the other tiny wonders on the main map, squished in as they are among the coliseums and aqueducts." There's also a number of books on game design that highlight wonders as being a major part of the civilization series, and tries to use it to teach good game design: powerful milestones for players, super abilities, and so on. But when I look at all of these, I don't see anything that persuades me we should have a list of every wonder in the game. Yeah, highlight a few wonders in the main article if they're a major part of why people loved or hated the game. Yes, explain the appeal of the wonder mechanism. But a list of every single wonder is complete exposition and belongs in a WP:GAMEGUIDE, not for an encyclopedic summary of the game. Randomran (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wonders are part of the game, however the links all go to the real-world wonder, so as an article on the game it's utterly useless. It's a list of real things analogies of which are found in the game. Which is basically a pretty arbitrary list. MadScot (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This sort of stuff should be covered in a far more encyclopedic and concise manner in the main article. This approach is simply contextless trivia and unsalvagable in value. -- Sabre (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I was the one who originally PRODded it. Unencyclopedic list of information of questionable real world value. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to civilization.wikia.com. and deleteSYSS Mouse (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you sure that civilization.wikia.com wishes to be our dumping ground for mediocre articles? --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We can always ask. --Kizor 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.