# RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was merge into cultural references. I know it was my own suggestion, but it seems to be a good compromise, as it addresses both the delete and keep arguments. Skill 20:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

### Monty Python

Delete I feel this article should be deleted because Monty Python isn't actually a part of RuneScape, while it has influenced some parts of RuneScape. If an item or quest reflects Monty Python, it should be noted in that article. Cool Spy0 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - All the bullet points do seem to show that Jagex may've intentionally made references to the show, but, as quoted from the article, "*The knights dancing on the table in the party room in Falador which was formerly in Seers' Village." doesn't really tell how it's related to the show. This quote can make me wonder the following things:

• In the show, was a party building moved from one town to another?
• Do people dance on tables?
• Is it something about dancing knights? Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 06:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Good points, answers are in the Party Room article; article updated. Chrislee33 06:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Limiting entries only to individual articles does not show how much influence Monty Python has had on RuneScape as a whole. This article provides a place to see what parts of RuneScape Monty Python has affected. So far there a dozen entries. I did not know that before. Chrislee33 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Chrislee. Someone might actually come on to this wiki looking for all the Monty Python references in the game. You never know. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 07:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Suprisingly large number of references. In addition, considering that many are in fairly new parts of the game their is reason to believe that references will continue to be added. At the very least this seems more useful than some limited redirect! :D King Runite1 23:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say keep if this were changed to a list of cultural references in the game, rather than just Monty Python ones. It would be more directly related to RS this way. Skill 01:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Per Skill Atlandy 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep -Relevant and involving many points of runescape C |-| 3 3 5 313562 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge into a cultural references article per Skill. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 07:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge as per Skill's suggestion. Oddlyoko talk 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was change to [[:Category:Easter eggs]]. Skill 21:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

### [[Easter egg (virtual)]]

This article isn't related specifically to RS, so I don't really think we need it on this wiki. Simply linking to Wikipedia when needed would be fine. The only two easter eggs listed are Thingy and the one in SS, so it's not much use as a list of easter eggs in the game. Skill 01:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I say change to category. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorize I'm sure more of these eggs are "hiding", but the small little treats that Jagex includes aren't notable for their own article. earth(t)

Categorize per Earthere. Cool Spy0 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorize as stated above. There are multiple in the game, there are probably more to come, so no use deleting it. Ben 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. Skill 07:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

### Standing torch

• Delete - Just a very small and inaccurate page on some background object. --Drummer943 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's hardly notable. It's not really an item, as you can't pick it up. There's nothing you can do with it, either. The only thing in its favour here is that it exists at all! Oddlyoko talk 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Pointless article and not enough information. Jmo, 01:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Pointless, useless article about a pointless, useless piece of scenery. Cool Spy0 01:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Scenery that players cannot interact with in any way is outside the scope of this wiki. Skill 04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like an attempt for someone (again) just to get their pic on the wiki Atlandy 16:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There's not really any way to expand it, it's a useless background object, and the article itself seems like spam. Ben 05:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The image on the page should be deleted too, since it's the only place it's used. Oddlyoko talk 01:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If the page gets a proper deletion consensus, I'll take care of the image. Cool Spy0 01:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure about this, as sometimes i find some scenery that id like to learn about, but dont find it on the wiki...ill go with the flow.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. Consensus seems to indicate that the subject of the picture is fine, and the smear isn't really a reason to delete. If the animation's quality is an issue, then nothing is barring anyone from uploading another in its place. Skill 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

### [[:Image:Runescape personal casualoutfit-chikoritapro-male.gif]]

[[File:Runescape personal casualoutfit-chikoritapro-male.gif|frame|right]]

Delete - Very poor representation of all male characters on RuneScape. This outfit makes the character very well fruity. If it dosen't represent the subject of the article well it should be deleted. --Whiplash 23:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep No reason to delete, look fine to me and fruity is offensive Atlandy 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep - For the three articles it is used in, it has fully represented the subjects it is in. It is indeed a player character, a human, and represents the male gender. Those articles did not necessarily state "the typical" or "the common" male player, or that male players usually look like that. It did not even state that it is even a representation, but it has done its appropriate worth to describe the visual aspects of the article correctly.

As for looking "fruity", that is not a valid argument, nor is it against the policies. Tarikochi 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep If you look around the wikia, that player in that dress is used in many things. That same dress on a male character seems to fit, and like the above person it fulfils its purpose fine. Vidyogamasta 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards "Keep", but still neutral - Bad representation of an normal male character. The main thing being that most male characters have pants rather than a skirt. Besides that, I can't really find a reason to delete it. I do, though, think it should be more "manly", by having more stuff the average male character would have. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 23:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a skirt, and your character wears a skirt all the time. Tarikochi 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I mean non-armored skirts, and it looks like a skirt to me. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 00:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete A male character should not look like a cross-dresser or transvestite. The short hair is the only thing that makes it guy-ish. A decent male picture would work (No equipment) rather than this. (Note that while I do not have a problem with transvestites or cross-dressers, many people think it reflects poorly on the male gender.) One last thing: the image is grainy and appears to "smear" as the character is rotated. Cool Spy0 00:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Transvestite is not a word in RuneScape and is only associated with real life, especially when it's censored. Also, the smear is impossible to rid, as the alternative would have a sloppy background, which is much worse. Tarikochi 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
While it's impossible to get a 100% perfect animation, a sloppy background is still far better than that smear. Cool Spy0 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If the sloppy background gets constantly varied, it is worse then the "smear", which is only noticable if paying closer attention. Tarikochi 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Closer attention? That's the second thing I noticed in the picture. The first would be all those weird dots which you haven't mentioned. By the way, the sloppy background stays somewhat similar. Cool Spy0 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I never really noticed the blur until Tarikochi mentioned it. It still looks fine. And even if some people aren't satisfied with the image quality, having a picture of a man is better than nothing. earth(t)

Keep - Because wearing short shorts and sandals makes a man gay. That was sarcastic, by the way. earth(t)

Keep - but the insensitivity towards gay people here is appalling. A person can wear whatever they want, and nothing says that people don't choose these outfits on RuneScape, or in real life, and if they do, there's nothing wrong with it. This image serves it purposes and there's no reason to delete it. ChristineTalk 02:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Quality is slightly bad, could be bettered and a man wearing tari's clothes is a bit.... odd..... Jmo, 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is getting its job done, and one could argue in fact that having two similar pictures for this purpose highlights the differences in appearance between male and female characters. Skill 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep i dont see a reason to delete it, and besides, it looks kinda cool

Keep It is particularly appropriate for the Gender page, for illustrating, along with its female counterpart ([[:Image:Runescape_personal_casualoutfit-chikoritapro.gif]]), the gender change made by the Makeover Mage. Patheticcockroach(Talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was speedy delete. Skill 05:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

### Mandalore_65

Should there really be a redirect for a user to their own User page? To me, it seems like breaking RuneScape:Players_don't_deserve_articles.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was nomination withdrawn. Skill 22:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

### Pheasant

This page is not a random event, therefore it does not belong in the random event. If you want create another page, however not under the catagory random events. If we keep this page are we going to make a page for each seperate balloon animal in the Prison Pete random, each different lock in the Piorlly event, or an event page for the fish in the Evil Bob's island event?Azaz129 00:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep per RS:G. It's probably in the random events category because it only appears in random events. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 00:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is, however that no other characters have their pages appear in the random events section (for example Pious Pete- he doesn't appear anywhere else aside from randoms, but is his article here? No)By the way it's not so much I want the page deleted, more so Iwish for it to be removed from the random events catagoryAzaz129 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the idea is to remove it from the random events category, then why not do so and discuss on the talk page if anyone disagrees? It could be moved to a new category called "random event characters" or something. Skill 08:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep The problem is just the category... so the solution is just to remove the category, you don't need to delete and re-create the article to do this. Patheticcockroach(Talk) 08:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I say that we simply remove the tag then, by the way my computer has been messed up lately so I was unable to see the article in edit mode, I also forgot 'bout that. My computer works fine now and I'm simply forgeting about this whole thing. Keep Azaz129 (talkcontribs) forgot to sign this comment 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was speedy delete. Skill 16:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

### User:Morton 2005

I no longer play this game, I have quit in order to play...World of Warcraft.Morton 2005 15:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. Overwelming support. 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

### Anti-Red Protest

According to the article, this riot lasted fifteen minutes and 25 people took part, making it rather small compared to the other riots regarding these updates. Additionally, it is claimed that the riot had an "important impact", but as far as I know none of the riots have managed to accomplish anything much. This event isn't worthy of an article given its scale, and there are many other events with more attendees that I think the consensus is to exclude. Skill 06:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Support - Looks much like a promotional page to me : made by a user called Mandalore 65, about the clan lead by... Mandalore 65, and is the only contribution by this user. Patheticcockroach(Talk) 06:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - Same as above user said, the article describes an event of no significant magnitude, and doesn't really conform to encyclopedia style - seems self promotion to me. Khalron 09:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - This is clearly propoganda and should be deleted with all haste, all it does is promote a clan that broke the rules and it's leader.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azaz129 (talk).
4. Support - Very small scale event and non-neutral writing style. Pointy 14:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Support if images or videos cannot be shown to confirm notability. If a video or image(s) are added, I change my vote to "pending" until further notice, as it may show it's notable, or may show it's not notable. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 19:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Wow, it's not even an article, it looks made up, calling Mod Hasmo first Hanson and then Henson, saying that Player Mods BANNED people, this should be in speedy deletion, not here... Jigo22 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually it says a Jagex Mod (eg gold crown) banned ppl, not Player Mods. I don't know if that's true, but I think it's possible. Patheticcockroach(Talk) 23:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
7. support This article is kind of pointless and i doubt this riot even scaled up to what might be considered riot. I believe this was more of a rant session. Jmo, 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. A riot this minor does not deserve mention. Cool Spy0 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Support - Not worthy of an article, had no impact on the community, and I've never heard of it... Something like this should go in a larger article, like the World 66 protest, saying that many smaller riots took place. 22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we have some consensus now... also, the page author doesn't seem to be willing to defend his page.Patheticcockroach(Talk) 22:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was speedy delete. Skill 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

### Hack

I think that it is a personal page instead of runescape help. XDRAGONAITE + 09:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Support This should even be listed as speedy deletion. Patheticcockroach(Talk) 09:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was speedy delete. (Per below.) Skill 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

### 6 January

Seems to be absolutely useless filler. I know Skill made it, however, it's unnecessary. Should we have one page for all 366 possible days of the year, just because events could potentially happen on said days? I vote for deletion of this page and any similar fillers until major events occur on said date.
02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I made it because it was on the wanted pages list. The links could be removed or different content be placed if having a date filler is really a problem. Skill 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The only link is on Highscores, where it's used as "Last update on 6 January 2008". I'll remove that link, so this page should be able to be deleted with no problem. Unless, of course, someone has any info to add to this page. Ben RyfosTalk 02:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, But I already removed that link, so if anyone wants to delete the page, feel free, and I'll mark this VfD as being resolved.
02:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. Skill 06:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

### Category:RuneScape Wiki project page

Seems to be redundant, as pretty much all of the contents could be put in Category:RuneScape Wiki or a subcategory instead. Some pages are both in this category and Category:Policies, another subcategory of Category:RuneScape Wiki, which isn't really necessary. Skill 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote keep. Besides redundancy, I don't see any real reasons to delete. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy is a reason to delete, but there's no reason to keep. Skill 02:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I find redundancy to be a bad reason to delete. And there is a reason to keep: It's a big, and in use very much so, category. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
But why not just use a category that is more practical and already exists? I doubt many people really use this one to find a list of project pages or something. Even if they did, they could just use Category:RuneScape Wiki. Skill 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If all the pages in Category:RuneScape_Wiki_project_page (or most) are moved into another category, I'll vote "delete". But the possible future "problem" of having a page in a non-existant category is why I'm voting "keep". Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought I made it pretty clear in the nomination that most of these would be moved to Category:RuneScape Wiki or a subcategory if this were deleted. :\ Skill 02:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You did, but it may be forgotten about, or left unfinished for months after taking a break and not restarted. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It's only 30-some pages, and someone would finish it if whoever closed this debate didn't, since it would show up on Special:Wantedcategories. Skill 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Redundancy is no reason to delete if it does not affect the integrity of the Wiki. Since we have unlimited storage space, I find this to hardly be an issue.
02:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Redundant categories pose the same problem as redundant articles: one might be updated while the other is not, making them incomplete. Skill 03:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Skill there. I've done my best to merge these articles into other categories, and I'm pretty sure I've emptied out this category. If anyone doesn't agree there, then I can just undo those edits. Otherwise, it's now just a blank category ready to delete. Ben RyfosTalk 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Category is empty, unused, and a duplicate. 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing vote to "Delete" - Empty. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Sorry, just realized I didn't vote. Ben RyfosTalk 05:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. Skill 08:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

### Grand Exchange pillar

An article about those big pillars at the entrance to the GE. This is a scenery object that players cannot interact with, and so it should not have its own article per RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Standing torch. Information can be merged into Grand Exchange. Skill 04:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree.. Delete. Ben RyfosTalk 15:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol. We have the strangest of articles sometimes. Delete 05:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think this could even be speedy deleted. 05:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was speedy delete. 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

### Image:Air Altar.PNG

I think this should be deleted because it is a JPEG. I think JPEG's should be banned all together. 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's always some images that are supposed to be .JPGs. About the image, this doesn't need to be VfDed. It's tagged for speedy deletion, which does not need a VfD. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. Christine 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

### TzHaar Fight Cave guide

A few reasons. One, it's a big mess, and I mean a huge mess. Two, most of the info is incorrect, especially in the equipment section (An ancient mace? Give me a break). Three, images are still hosted on Photobucket instead of Wikia. Four, it's using alot of inappropriate tone (such as "I think you should..." instead of "It's recommended that..."). Also, there is sufficient info about this on the main article, and that article is much better organized than this one. Finally, that clean up tag has been on there for far too long. People have been saying they will clean it up, but I have not seen one sign of improvement. I think it's best if we just let it go, even if the author worked hard on it. --Drummer (speak) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ancient mace is to be used for alternative restoration mean for prayer. The fact that you do not use it, does not necessary mean that someone else would find it useless. Golduin 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete, or at least restart the article keeping the current version as a reference, if even that. This is all that's happened to the article in the four and a half months since the last nomination. The cleanup promised during that VFD doesn't appear to have happened, other than moving a few images from Photobucket onto the wiki. It doesn't make sense to me to keep this article around longer. Skill 00:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Skill Atlandy 14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Skill and Atlandy
• Delete per everyone Cheers, 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

*Give me at least a week before closing this earth(t)

• Delete per Skill and Drummer943. I see what they mean.
• Comment - I haven't reviewed the article in-depth, so I won't judge whether it should be deleted or not, but I do want to point out that some of the issues Drummer raised are fixable. Images can be moved, the tone can be fixed, and information can be corrected. However, if no one's interested in fixing it and there is a better article/section on the same topic, by all means, proceed.  Gangsterls  talk01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean-Up. Remove strategy descriptions from TzTok-Jad and general Fight_Cave article. Strategy is complex enough to have article on its own. Golduin 02:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete and remake the article with good information. The topic is big enough to deserve a guide of its own.User:Jgard 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was merge with List of Gnomecopter Tours player NPCs. There seems to be general agreement that it is unwieldy to have a separate article for each NPC here, but that the information might still be useful. I think the merge compromise that was proposed works well. Skill 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that there are a few Gnomecopter NPCs that appear in other cutscenes as well. I've left their articles alone for now, as they're not the same case as those who only appear in Gnomecopters. If someone else wants to VFD them they can feel free. Skill 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

### I like m0m

This cutscene character had no impact on RuneScape or Gnomecopters. If we make an article for him, than we might as well make an article for all of the Gnomecopter characters.  C Teng talk 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nominator.  C Teng talk 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep This is the "RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape". Anything in RuneScape could be here; it's not like the Wikipedia where things are limited. See RuneScape:Granularity. Anyone willing to make those other articles on the Gnomecopter characters is welcome to. I might do it, when I get more time. Chrislee33 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - You think that every single one deserves their own article? I know RuneScape:Granularity, but it also says that some articles- those- don't deserve one.  C Teng talk 01:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep- as what Chrislee33 said, this wiki is about granularity, meaning the article should be kept. If this is deleted, then the NPC's in the Draynor Bank robbery should have their articles deleted. BTW: I created this article, and 2 of the other NPC's at Lletya(In Gnomecopters, of course).

Neutral leaning to keep - I somehow doubt that any of these minor NPCs will ever get featured status... or even go beyond a mere stub. The largest problem here is mainly the plethora of NPCs that can be see just like this guy in many of the areas of the gnomecopter... in particular the castle wars area. Perhaps this is something that should be put into a list of gnomecopter NPCs listed in separate articles organized by area/flight pattern? Some of the names refer to long gone players, and others are simply humorous in terms of what was chosen, such as this one. If there were to be any reason to see player interaction (such as an upcoming quest) or some other reason other than something you see during the "tour", I would like to see it. As such, this seems to be skating very close to the non-interactive scenery. You can't kill him, talk to him, or even use this NPC as a part of a quest, and it would seem to be highly doubtful that Jagex would involve a quest to these gnomecopter areas. --Robert Horning 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment, could we kill two birds with one stone by creating a Gnomecopter player character's page with information about each one? Listing each name on the Gnomecopter article itself really stretches out the page. Replacing it with a link to "List of Gnomecopter player characters" and on that page posting information about those character would reduce the need for the creation of a page for each character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.146 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008.

Keep. I like gr4nularity. Pointy 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with 72.1. A character page would be better.  C Teng talk 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Agreeing with 72.1 and above...a character page would work. Otherwise it kind of defeats having granularity, or it becomes a judgment by some of what should or should not be included...and it becomes a wiki for "some"things RuneScape. Dragon Lilly3 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• So, you want to delete I like m0m?  C Teng talk 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - There are plenty of minor NPCs with articles, and this is just one of them. In any case, I don't see how it hurts anyone. I can understand deleting articles with spam, bad information, etc, but this in no way hurts the wiki at all. Morian Smith 22:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep/Merge - Per RS:G and all, or move them all to one article. That would probably be more efficient than a horde of stubs that will always be so. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 06:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hi, it's 72.1 again. I created the page [[1]] and linked to it in the original article. It's up to you if all the information about them should be on that one page or on 100 different pages. I think the former would be better just because of simple maintenance.--72.1.222.146 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge Seeing how it's possible to say a bit more about these NPCs than it was for standing torch, I guess it's better to merge these articles into a table than delete. Despite granularity I don't think it's necessary or practical to maintain 100+ stub articles for these "players". Moreover, one of the more practical purposes of granularity (at least IMO) is to avoid having more than one infobox on the same page - which isn't an issue here, seeing how the only changes from article to article are name and location. Also, as a note I should mention that the "player" names' origins are probably speculation; despite how sure I am that "Nullpointer" refers to Java's NullPointerException, there's nothing concrete that confirms this. Skill 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already voted keep, but I'd support merge as well. The only thing I would say is that a table in a merged article could grow quite long if all the NPCs have images and a decription like the ones the 'I like m0m' articles has on it. Pointy 09:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Believe me when I say this; it is entirely possible to make all of these articles into non-stubs. Obviously, they're never going to be big articles the likes of a city or an important monster, but there's more than enough information to have multiple paragraphs in each one. Morian Smith 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'm confused... I see people saying "Keep," but also commenting that it should be merged into a table. Anyway, I agree with Chia, it would be better to be a table than a bunch of unused stubs. C Teng 17:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I initially thought I would say keep (and add the other NPCs), but Robert Horning makes the excellent point that these really count as non-interactive scenery (which is exempt from the granularity policy), since players cannot interact with them. Therefore, delete. Leevclarke 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - 72.1 here again, this time with an account. I've just removed all the red links on the List of Gnomecopter Tours player NPCs to take them off the wanted page and to encourage people to put the information on that page. Could we reach concensus on this topic by saying that NPCs appearing in the Gnomecopter tours who also appear in other areas of the game such as Elfinlocks or Cow31337Killer can have their own article but if the others are only found in the tours, their information should be centralized and kept on the list page instead? --Diberville 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Important comment - Please note that I have added a vote for deletion tag on Distantthin, Wigglewoo, Orangeowns, Lollery and Funorbrox and had them redirect here since we would be having six different discussions on the same topic. Additionally, I have changed much of the List of Gnomecopter Tours player NPCs; it is now in list form and I have added the information of the six articles up for deletion to it.--Diberville 17:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Gnomecopters articles list all the characters anyway, we dont have a reason to have stub articles for every single one. NPC articles in my opinion, should only include articles that have influences on the player directly (as in Attackable, Quest, or "Gift Giving"). Bowler225 09:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Why don't we just move it to the Interactive Scenery category? I mean, no one is arguing about Ahab's beer there, so same should go for this. Firzenr 12:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If these characters were actually interactive then the Interactive Scenery category would be appropriate, but there are non interactive scenery. ~kytti khat 13:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then let's put it in non-interactive scenery category. Firzenr 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
RS:G excludes non-interactive scenery. Therefore, none of these pages should even be allowed.  C Teng talk 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Consensus suggestion - The short of it: merge. Reading over the comments, it seems that there's a general agreement that these articles are neither super important nor are they completely useless. Obviously, several different people thought it important enough to create and update the articles and since this is a F2P update, there is a much higher chance that people would come here looking for information on I like m0m and the others, be it wondering what the deal is with their names or what equipment they are wearing. On the other hand, it seems ridiculous and unwieldy to create 130 different articles about glorified bots. I've already redone the List of Gnomecopter Tours player NPCs to be in table form and have merged all the information from the above mentioned articles a little while ago. Therefore, the articles have become redundant. So considering that the information itself will still be accessible for those who want it, I suggest we go ahead and delete the other articles. Is this acceptible to everyone?--Diberville 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was speedy delete. Per the comments below. Even if we don't speedy this on those grounds, the odds of the article surviving a VFD are practically zero, and as such there's no need to run it through the process. Skill 03:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

### Reformists

I think that this is totally unneeded, per the reasons on the talk page.

"Since you are the creator and mostly the sole edittor of this page, you probably should add sources linking to the knowledge base, or explaining exactly where in-game you can find information regarding the subjects in this article, otherwise it could be considered fancruft or fanfiction, which is typically deleted from here."
and
"...and i know of no other source of this information."

Delete. A quote from the article: "Guthix is his name in this Dimension. When he came to this dimension from ours in which is name is The lord god. [. . .] Humans were created when he moved primitive monkeys from another dimension and sped the evolution up, the evolved into primitive humans and monkeys. Some primitive humans evolved into Dwarves and humans. [. . .] The Devil created zaros to make evil." This belongs on the fanfiction wiki, not here.  Regabuh (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - It's completely fake. It obviously doesn't belong here, but on the fan fiction RuneScape Wiki. Morian Smith 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I think this could have been a candidate for speedy deletion (as patent nonsense), never mind votes! The creator of the page attempts to justify it on the talk page by saying "anyone can edit!!!!!!! It's called free speech, i will say what i believe" This is clearly a baseless argument, and this does not belong here. Leevclarke 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I had actually considered putting a speedy deletion tag myself, but there was already a discussion going on at the talk page about deletion so I decided against it myself.  Regabuh (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Since this is invented fancruft, this is a candidate for a speedy deletion and we don't really have to go through the motions of a VfD.--Diberville 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The argument for deletion, namely that the gathering had little impact as a player event, seems to be stronger than the main keep argument, which is that the number of attendees makes the event notable. Other keep arguments do not appear to be very well rooted in consensus nor are they stronger than the delete argument. Skill 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

### RuneScape Gathering 2008

This is a non Jagex function that is not a riot of any kind. It had nor has had any bearing on the game in the past nor future. It is simply a gathering of people that was planned, nothing more [[File:Drunk dragon.png|Drunk dragon]]Cheers! Atlandy 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Atlandy (I think riot articles should be removed too, btw..). Christine 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep -- "3000+ attendees" is a figure that speaks for itself. earth(t)

Prove it. Christine 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Because there are alot of people, how is that game related? [[File:Drunk dragon.png|Drunk dragon]]Cheers! Atlandy 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And same goes for all the major riots too? Bowler225 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose/Keep - Not just 3,000 people attended, but even more. At the time the following data was copied, (Right around 00:30 A.M. (UTC)), the peak hours are going, but are at the start of their daily decline. As quoted directly from RuneScape's world select screen:

```World 125	639 Players	Canada West	-	Free
World 126	612 Players	Canada West	LootShare	Free
World 127	601 Players	Canada West	LootShare	Free```

${\displaystyle 639+612+601=1,852}$. At the time of the party, Worlds 125 and 126 were full (2,000 people twice, so 4,000 people), and World 127 had about 1,500 people. ${\displaystyle 2,000+2,000+1,500=5,500}$. Now that we know the general number of people that were on during the party and the people during the later peak hour times, we can figure out how many people were at the party. ${\displaystyle 5,500-1,852=3,648}$. So, not just 3,000, but 3,600. But, let's say that some of the people that were on at that time were elsewhere, since it was slightly more in the middle of the peak hours. ${\displaystyle 3,648-10}$%${\displaystyle =3,283.2}$.

If that doesn't persuade you, here's another way to show that it had lots of people.

Sosolid2kk, a famous RuneScape-playing YouTuber, made an invite video to the party. As of 00:52 A.M. (UTC), he has 11,373 subscribers. About a month ago, he had 10,600, or so, as I recall. Now looking from the first 21 of his subscribers listed (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (source for first 21 subscribers)) (findings due to be innacurate in the future), 12 have last logged in in the past 13 days, 7 have last logged in longer than 14 days ago, and 2 have their accounts suspended or closed. ${\displaystyle 12/21=0.571428571}$, or 57%. 57%, more than half, of his subscribers were active on YouTube when the invite videos were released.

To find out about how many subscribers he had two weeks ago, let's average his current subscriber count with the approximate one a month ago. ${\displaystyle (11,373+10,600)/2=10,986.5}$.

If 57% were active, then about 90% of that 57% got the message that he released a video about an invite to the gathering. ${\displaystyle 0.9/0.571428571=0.514285714}$, or 51%, got the notification. ${\displaystyle 10,986x0.514285714=5,649.95852}$ (Dropped the ".5" in the number of subscribers since you can't have half a person.) 5,000 people got the notification. Now, whenever I get a notification that one of the people I'm subscribed to upload a new video, I watch it. It's why I'm subscribed to the person.

Now that I've said everything I just said, I can finish what I'm trying so hard to type, which I'm getting tired of with all the data gathering and math I'm doing. Sosolid2kk's invite video has 67,740 views as of 1:30 A.M. (UTC), minus two I gave it when I clicked on the link to it to get the view count, and when I had to click on the link again because I accidentally closed the tab. It has been up for 13 days, which is one day less than two weeks (Uploaded on the 8th, and today's the 21st.). We can divide the view count to see about how many views there were per day. ${\displaystyle 67,740/13=5,210.769231}$ views per day. The event was on the 19th, which was 11 days after the uploading of the video. ${\displaystyle 5,210.769231x11=57,318.46154}$ was approximately how many times the video was viewed before the event.

57,000 people were told about the event. That can show that it could easily be more than 3,000. If 10% of the people that saw the video came to the event, it would have been at least 5,700 people.

Well, all that proves that the attendance was at least 3,000 people.

And so what if it wasn't a riot? It was at some points with people following a leader and all yelling "Bring back Pk" which would fill up the screen, as much as it is [[:Image:Rule 7 Riot.png|here]].

As for it being game-related, see the message at the top of this discussion, as well as every other page. "From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape". Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Chia, more than 10% of people were off doing other things -.- all your numbers were just guesses, and not at all based on fact. You can't know that those people all went just cuz they saw the video. Christine 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
For Christ's sake, pick apart his argument and don't just say garbage like "z0mg pr0ve it w/ facts dunt guess lol". earth(t)
YES. WHY ON EARTH WOULD I WANT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA TO HAVE FACTS?!? Christine 02:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A good 50% of the info in RSW is original research. It's difficult to prove that any information is correct unless the reader, for example, goes through a quest using one of our quest guides. No one can travel back in time and "go through a party that has already happened", so the point of it "not being accurate" is unavoidable. An exception would be that an editor had been at the party, made observations, and factually checked them twice, which would be no fun at all. Another exception would be another editor going back in time and doing the previously mentioned observations, something I highly doubt has or will ever occur.
Another example of original research would be be Barrows; most of this guide is not based on cold hard facts, yet completely un-VfD-able. This is because the "guide section" of Barrows remains informative, notable, and helpful, and that is why it is still at RSW. Lastly, the only truly credible source is the Knowledge Base, which is incidentally the official RuneScape knowledge source. It offers very limited information in comparison to fansites like us, which makes original research acceptable in the event of building a large pyramid of knowledge. earth(t)

Delete How is this any different from a large clan event, other than the number of attendees? As Atlandy pointed out, this has no impact on the game's history... how many readers are going to be interested in a thousand people getting together and loitering? Riots can be considered to be part of the player reaction to an update, at the very least, so they can be covered in some form (though perhaps not in their own articles, but that's another debate). This is simply a mass gathering that was planned and coordinated by a handful of people, word of which spread to attendees outside of the game. Once again, sounds more like a clan event than anything. Skill 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - If not deleted, this article needs to be seriously revised. We have a policy on not mentioning players. The article mentions Zezima like 5 times (last time I checked), and it also mentioned Tehnoobshow and some other players I don't know. Although riots and big protests are noteworthy, is some party planned by a few YouTube stars? We're an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not Runehq. If I planned an event and went ingame with 1000 players would I be allowed to create an article on my party? No, and for the same reason this article needs to go. 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming players in this situation falls under RS:IAR. To make the article more informative, players' names would be mentioned. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hope none of you mind, but I chaged support and oppose to delete and keep respectively in order to avoid confusion and in keeping with proper wiki formatting.--Diberville 00:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hits on youtube have no bearing on the event. The fact that we are "all thing runescape" is a bit misleading. I have a Runescape tattoo, does that deserve a page (it is about runescape). I named my kid Askeladen, does that deserve a page? When Zybez or runehq host an event, do we have pages on that? what about the wikifest? Chia once again your logic has failed [[File:Drunk dragon.png|Drunk dragon]]Cheers! Atlandy 11:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, that's not what I said. I'd really appreciate it if you stopped saying that my "logic phailz", as Rendova would put it, just because you use an example that would make what I say incorrect. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - You named your child Askeladen? Anyways, this is no more than a big clan event organized by some youtube stars. 21:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and he has a lesser demon tattooed on his bicep. Christine 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting... 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I lol'd! earth(t)
Oi vey! >_< Christine 23:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
"Oh woe is me"
Noob. earth(t)

Earthere, could you be a little more mature? Just a tad, this is not a place for you to be arguing with Christine. If you two want to argue feel free to make this page --> runescape.wikia.com/wiki/User:Puremexican/Earthere-Christine_arguement <-- or hell, just go at it in eachother's talk pages. Jmo, 01:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pending Delete- Ok, getting back to the topic at hand. The Multi Site Steel War 3 which had thousands of participants, was an organized effort by the biggest Runescape sites (Tip.it, RuneHQ, Rune village, rune crypt, Runescape community, Runescape B&B and Sal's) to have one more and one last multi-clan war before the new updates to the Wilderness (which occured less than two days later). This doesn't have an article nor is anyone arguing that it should. So considering this, why is the RS Gathering more deserving?

Changing pending vote to delete as no one has given me one single reason why it should be kept nor could I find one myself. If this gathering was somehow the fallout or the cause of a Jagex update, I could see keeping it.--Diberville 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: It's likely that if this page is deleted, 19 April will have to be as well, as this is the only event mentioned on that page, and I think we've agreed to avoid empty date stubs for now. Skill 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning toward Delete - Yes, this is a very big gathering, but like Ilyas said, this is no more than a big clan event. It didn't make "RuneScape History," or any impact on the game whatsoever. It wouldn't hurt to keep it, but it really isn't needed.  C Teng talk 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Keep This event, like a riot, was player made and was one of the largest in history. I believe deleting this should imply that riot pages be deleted as well, both are player started, and a slight bit of rioting occurred there as well.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bowler225 (talk).

Yeah, let's delete the riot pages too. Christine 17:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Useless drivel. Chiafriend12's statements are all speculative and OR. Sagarmatha 17:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Per every last reason I've seen for deleting above.

Comment - To Bowler225, riots are a (normally) a response to something Jagex did or an update, which makes them noteworthy. The December 10th riots did indeed impact the game, as did Jagex's updates. This gathering did not impact the game much, and it wasn't a response to anything Jagex did (besides the small riots that occured while it did). 15:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment How did the riots impact the game? While I understand people were mad, Not one thing got changed. And before you start, people quitting was not as a result of the riot, it was as a result of the changes. Also, there is no waay to say of the people who quit how many were bots. Sorry to go off topic [[File:Drunk dragon.png|Drunk dragon]]Cheers! Atlandy 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, massive riots don't completely impact the game on their own, but they add to the tension of some update or change Jagex has made, and they start friction between players pro and anti update (like December 10th). Jagex's updates were greeted with a big middle finger (excuse my language) by a huge majority (maybe 75-80%) of the players. Riots broke out and lasted for three days and this caused friction in the game. Many users quit in response to the updates and the riots only added to that. The gathering, however, was not a response to anyting Jagex did and did not create any tension between players and Jagex. It was simply a clan gathering. Riots that are big enough deserve their own article because they usually are recognized by Jagex themselves (don't tell me Jagex didn't know that 5000 people were rioting, because if they didn't there wouldn't be J-Mods at the riots). I believe we should keep riot pages (as long as they are big enough) but not the gathering page. 16:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is off-topic, but I agree with Ilyas about the riot pages.  C Teng talk 20:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I actually enjoyed reading about how players could organize an event like this that was not wholly devoted to ranting about Jagex or some update or another. I found it pretty uplifting and helped, just a little, my opinion of the RS community (which is not very high to begin with). --AndorinKato 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep For every reason I've seen for keeping above and any that appear below.-- 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't support for unknown reasons.. Christine 17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Keep Pretty pointless event, but, well, there was a massive amount of people, and it was actually well organized. From looking at videos and screenshots, you could see there was at least more than 1000 people. It is just one big event that did not impact the game much, but it would not do any damage to keep it. Maybe we could just take it out of the 'Events' category, and maybe, put in a miscellanous category. Firzenr 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment If the first sentance is pretty pointless event, why vote keep? I have yet to see a strong argument to keep [[File:Drunk dragon.png|Drunk dragon]]Cheers! Atlandy 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment It wouldn't hurt to keep it. It is, after all, related to Runescape, and it isn't a dumb article like "Zezima rox he is the cooolest with one billion xp", which should be deleted. Remember that it did have a lot of hype. Firzenr 04:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete This seems more suitable to be shared on user pages (assumedly by users that participated). If this article were to be kept then the Summer Wikifest should also be turned into an article which i believe would simply be absurd. ~kytti khat 13:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No Consensus? -- earth(t)

Ídea! --Lets place it in "Event" category! then its fine!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.121.135.90 (talk).

Comment - No matter how many times we say this people just don't listen. Let me bold it just to get my point across... It does not matter how many people attended it or who organized it/how well it was organized. It DID NOT impact the game, Jagex was not involved and they did not recognize it, and player organized events (save riots that impact the game) ARE NOT WORTHY OF ARTICLES, no matter how huge they were. If you can explain to me how this indisputably impacted the game, players' experience of the game, and Jagex, I'll take back my vote, but so far that's not going to happen. 16:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete This is just a stupid thing to have on a good fansite. Like it's been said before, Jagex was not involed except for the alleged view of a Jagex Mod. Atod 22:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep

Ilyas, no one needs to convince you of anything, so don't try to imply that your single vote is the deciding factor of whether or not the page gets deleted. There is no need for the tone of condescension either, just so you know. That kind of attitude doesn't make friends, at least not friends you should want.

This is a player-organized event. It is a collaborative effort by players to just have fun. Is that so wrong?

Contrary to popular belief, this is a noteworthy event. If riots are notable (which they are because they do in fact serve some purpose, believe it or not) and are simply responses to Jagex's actions, why should an event like this, without some action by Jagex, be forgotten? It is all just for fun, which is the player's purpose of RuneScape as I recall.

No, you shouldn't have a page for your tattoo or your child, that is generally what would be regarded as socially suicidal by making a fool of yourself for the entire population of the internet's viewers to see. There is nothing foolish about some players just gathering because they want to.

It may not be the most informative, crucial, or useful page, but it still is in fact a part of RuneScape's history as much as Desert Treasure is. Granted, it may not be near as relevant, but that does not mean there is a need for it to be erased.

For those of you who ignorantly and childishly try to use single-line or single-sentence remarks in a futile effort to sway the discussion in favor of your opinion, try thinking about what you say before you say it. If you want to be taken seriously then show that you have the intellect that deserves attention. How do you honestly expect to accomplish any sort of resolution to this issue (that shouldn't really even be an "issue" anyway) if the only sort of conversation is just that done by people trying to be difficult with each other, trying to make "smart" (notice the quotation marks) comments to each other? PsyWumper 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

One, just one, result of the Dec 10th update was the hundreds of thousands of conversations resulting from it and players deciding if they would or would not remain in the game because of it. It is still a huge topic still commonly discussed 5 months later. Results of the Gathering? Zero. I have not heard a single mention of it ingame. It had absolutely no impact whatsoever. The article is really a waste of space.--216.136.67.131 08:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend people look at this, as I'm seeing a lot of them here ;)

Anyway, the main reason that I personally worry about this page is that the precedent it creations. Letting it stay shows people that "creating a page about a player-made event is okay". Then, you have the problem of deciding which player-made events to have pages on. Who is the RuneScape wiki to decide which event is "big" and which "doesn't matter"? That, and these pages will be filled with point of view and would be difficult to provide information on, since it only happened once. I'm kind of 50-50 on the riot pages. On one hand, I can see how people can relate it, since it is a direct response to something Jagex did. However, this should focus less on the riot pages and more on this page itself. Thanks, 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are several keep comments now that simply equate the gathering to the riots as a basis for allowing this page. The fact of the matter is, however, that riots are completely different from the gathering. The gathering is not a significant part of RS history, nor is it inseparably related to an update or other notable part of the game. On the other hand, each of the riots was a direct response to an update (aside from the one over a player being muted). There is clearly a difference between the two that cannot simply be ignored as several people now have suggested. Skill 23:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete RuneHQ always got such a major turnout for annual celebrations that they routinely maxed and crashed more than one Jagex server. Multi-site Steel War was another major and well attended event from multiple fansites. The Youtube party under vote, which most of us never even heard about in game or from friends, doesn't really register on the Richter scale imho. (Leave the riots out of the discussion - that's a different issue.) Pokemama 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete For reasons said in the above Delete Comment. Also the fact that it had basically no impact on the players and game. Crypto416 20:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.