RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Dungeoneering keys

Template:Dungeoneering keys

 * Previous discussion here.

Note: This proposal encompasses not only the linked template, but every individual key article (such as blue corner key and orange triangle key) as well as Template:Infobox dungeoneering key.

I would like to delete this template and redirect all the individual key pages to Dungeoneering keys. In the previous discussion, RuneScape:Granularity was most often cited as the reason for the overwhelming opposition to the proposal. However, I do not believe that RS:G should apply here. The point of RS:G is to ensure that anything that is worth having an article has an article, and I don't think Dungeoneering keys are sufficiently different that each deserves its own article. Quite literally, the only difference between the keys are their colors and their shapes. Each is found in the exact same fashion, and each has the exact same use. They cannot be substituted for one another insofar as you can't use a silver crescent key to unlock a red rectangle door, but that's it. That's the only difference.

Now, if there were fewer possible Dungeoneering keys, it may not be as much of an issue. However, there are sixty-four keys, and each has its own article. In my mind, this is ridiculously unnecessary. Our overly strict application of RS:G means we have an additional sixty-four pages on the wiki which must be kept up. What's more, these articles are virtually identical, with the following content:

Aside from those two sentences and an infobox, the pages are empty. Is there really any benefit whatsoever to keeping these pages? They list nothing at all that a) Isn't blindingly obvious (like 'a green crescent key is used to unlock a green crescent door') or b) Couldn't be listed on the main Dungeoneering keys article (like 'Dungeoneering keys cannot be alchemised'). Most importantly, I believe that a new user who searched for a specific key would be better off being redirected to the main Dungeoneering keys article, which is far more informative than each individual key article.

With all the above in mind, it is my belief that application of RS:G to this situation does more harm than good.

Discuss. -- 21:22, February 10, 2011 (UTC)