RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 6

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current project page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was moved to user space. Skill 02:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Player hotspots[edit source]

I've been going through the orphaned pages until there was only one left: this article. The under construction tag has been there since early October 2007 and it seems to be an inaccurate, abandoned article. In fact, the only thing found on the talk page is the question of why this isn't already deleted. I think that like the TzHaar Fight cave guide, it should be deleted due to its lack of quality. And as an other argument, I have to wonder if it even should be here, regardless of its content since it seems to be like so many other deleted articles, a list of places where a lot of people show up.--Diberville 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete An article that attempts to document player density? Slightly crazy, and perhaps stating the obvious. Definitely delete IMO. Leevclarke 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support per everything said above, and as creator of the article. I confess that most of it was original research, and I intended for the article to be used for an essay sort of thing. Kind of hard to explain, but ****, that was what, 7 months ago?

Is there any chance I can get this moved to User:Earthere/Player hotspots, or would that violate the GFDL? May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)

Are you talking about transfering the article to somewhere on your user page? Because the GFDL states that the article "can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikia page." So I don't see any conflict unless you're talking about some different element that I'm missing.--Diberville 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, just a traditional move. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)

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 keep. Vandalism to the page has now been reverted. Skill 22:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Research package[edit source]

This page needs to be deleted. Young children use this website, and this sort of language is completely unacceptable, especially on this site.

I am unable to delete this page, and I am sure you will agree that it needs deletion.

Thanks. Hankmeister 12:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't pretend to not be new here, but it looks like just random vandalism, I editted to how it was previously, hope that's fine. Quest MasterTexan H B K Quest Master 12:30, 10 June 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 keep. Skill 22:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Blood tithe[edit source]

I think this information could be quite adequately included in the Vyrewatch article. The tithing practice surely does not need its own article. Any opinions please? Many thanks.  :-) Leevclarke 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep - In its present state, it doesn't deserve it's own article. But the article needs a ton of information, and it would deserve its own article if it had it. It only talks about how the Vyrewatch tithe players in Meiyerditch. It ought to talk about it as a payment as a whole, including its history in the Vampyre government, its us as a payment, the process of tithing, the side effects and mortality rate, its use in Meiyerditch, efforts to stop it, the forcing of humans to tithe others humans, etc. It could easily be made into a very good article. Morian Smith 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I agree with Morian Smith. It is a very important subject regarding Morytania, and if expanded could prove to be a great article. 92.237.21.186 19:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It is an article that prove itself most interesting. Though I agree it should talk more about the history of the tithe.Anteroinen1 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - i've edited it a bit, but I don't know the history as I have not done the quests. 92.237.21.186 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Good information for people who do not know what a "tithe" is. Chicken7 >talk 12:48, 10 June 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 keep. Skill 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mill Lane Mill[edit source]

I do not think that this particular building needs its own article, as the information could be adequately covered in the Windmill article. Leevclarke 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - I disagree that this article needs to be deleted/merged into the Windmill article. It is a physical location, and in fact plays a role in the Cook's Assistant quest (assuming you don't obtain a pot of flour through some other means than making it yourself.... particularly for F2P players). This mill is also the one "tutorial" location that an NPC tries to "teach" new players on how to mill their own flour. I certainly consider it to be a landmark of sorts, and particularly with the introduction of the Gnomecopter Tours this has turned into a much more significant location. It won't become a major article, ever, but I fail to see why this shouldn't be allowed to be developed into a more detailed article about this specific mill. --Robert Horning 02:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per reasons that Robert Horning addressed. Although there are some inaccuracies (there is the Cooking Guild's windmill, so Mill Lane is not the only F2P windmill) the article could easily be expanded with updated information, a map, and key information about nearby areas (the nearby wheat field and the sink in the farm across the road makes this an ideal spot to make bread dough for low level players, for example).
EDIT: I went ahead and did some cleanup and new information on the article as described above, but I'm not going to add any images yet (just because they would have to be deleted as well). Dark cavalier.png Regabuh (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This building is not only important for new players, with its quest role and mini-tutorial, but is also one of the most important cooking locations and is a landmark. 92.237.21.186 16:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although a lot seems to happen at it I just don't think it really deserves an article. There's not much to say about it. It can be included in the windmill article or the cooking tutor or whoever is there. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 07:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a small subject, but the RuneScape Wiki is supposed to be for all things RuneScape. RS:G only excludes non-interactive scenery, and this isn't. If Jolly Boar Inn and the rest of the bars and unimportant buildings deserve articles, then this one does, too. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point but inns sell things. This place doesn't. Chicken7 >talk 12:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Obviously it's not the most important building, but it's a significant building for a lot of players. Morian Smith 15:12, 7 June 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 keep. Per RS:G. Skill 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

2/3 Cake[edit source]

Delete or merge: I feel that this article should be deleted because it serves no purpose. Either that, or merge with cake and add that information to it. My two cents. --Derilith 13:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - per RuneScape:Granularity. Though this article could serve as the textbook example of minutiae, it is technically its own seperate item and per policy, deserves its own article.--Diberville 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's its own item and we have the policy. Chicken7 >talk 10:34, 19 June 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 keep. Speculation appears to have been removed, seems fine as an article now. Skill 22:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Crystal halberd[edit source]

  • Delete - I am nomming this page again, but for a few different reasons than last time. First of all, this page is a blatant violation of RS:NOT#CRYSTAL; most statements are just opinions and/or predictions with no evidence to back it up. Secondly, I have talked with Ilfeen in the game; she mentioned nothing about crystal halberds, making it very likely that they won't exist, so this page shouldn't really stay. --Drummer (speak) 17:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Changing to Neutral - Endasil has given it a rewrite to remove all the unwanted speculation, and I discovered that she does mention halberds; I just didn't take a seed to her the first time. --Drummer (speak) 18:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Slay - Three words: non-existent item. Player-based speculation isn't enough cause for this to have its own article; if Jagex states that they are implementing a new set of crystal-based weapons, maybe then. But until then, just turn it into a redirect like dragon kiteshield and all the other NEI's. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Feed to Chtulu - There are no Crystal halberds in Runescape. Planeshifted 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong DeleteI agree, I was the creator of some non-existent item articles, mainly the Zaros mjolnir (unreleased by Jag, but found in their files), the Soul talisman and Tiara, and the infamous Life rune (no-one believed me, then it was merged into Soul rune, then Jag finally released info on it, proving me right). Those articles were all deleted due to RS:NOT#CRYSTAL, so this should too. Also, someone nominate Granite boots as well, as all we have to go by on that article is an NPC wearing rocky boots. [[User:Total_Rune|Total Rune]] 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry for all the edits, but also, Soul talisman, Soul tiara, Granite boots. They all need to be nominated as well. 70.49.204.107 17:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Soul talisman and soul tiara have in-game evidence to support the fact that they will eventually be created, such as the level-up messages and the leaked images from the KB. They don't need deleting. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 17:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Addendum: From RS:NIP: "Articles about items that players have found pictures of on the official site are allowed to be created. This includes, but isn't limited to, Runecrafting talismans and some dragon items." --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I see, well that doesn't explain why about a year ago when I was here, my article for the Zaros Mjolnir (i had a picture, plus the item is in the list of items in the game, you can find the list anywhere, except that most of them are very old lists, ending with items from the Tolna quest) was deleted. It looks exactly like the Ancient Staff except with a wood handle and silver Zaros symbol. I still think Jag removed it due to the ancient staff looking exactly like it. 70.49.204.107 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I kind of wanted to see if we can start over...I've made a bunch of changes to the article to make it non-crystal-ballish. The article as it is now does not further any rumours, but still addresses the Crystal halberd as a source of speculation. The reason I feel that the article still deserves an article are as follows:
  1. By RuneScape:Granularity. I think that players confused by the rumours will come to our site looking for answers. We might as well have an answer for them.
  2. As such, those who don't find an article will continually create it anyway. This lets us control the page, making sure that only facts and not speculation are presented.Endasil (Talk) @  18:23, 15 June 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 keep. 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bone Yard[edit source]

Although this page is a legitimate part of Runescape history, it is no longer a part of Runescape. Unlike events that have occurred that are still in the history this article, in my opinion, has been "erased" from the history of Runescape. I think it should be merged with Aftermath of the Bounty Hunter update or possibly the Prayer pages. I think a section needs to be added to the Aftermath... page anyway talking about the changes to the Wilderness post-update.   Jathsen   (talk ° Contribs #)  05:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - What Chia said. Morian Smith 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Deleting the article will lose the historical value of what once was. ~kytti khat 05:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not a big wilderness user, especially after the BH updates and anti-PKing stuff. I didn't know this area no longer existed! :) This article certainly needs to remain for complete documentation of the game, and it certainly was a part of the game even if it isn't there now. Please don't merge this into some other article, as it is a legitimate place and location of the game, and multiple references to it can occur. --Robert Horning 14:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Certainly a Strong Keep - Like Robert Horning I've never been a big wilderness fan, but the bone yard was an significant part of the game before its removal. I think its important that the wiki should always try to document as much about RuneScape, both past & present, as possible. Dechaineux Talk 14:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - it was significant before the removal of the wilderness and it said in the article "After December 10, 2007 updates, the Bone Yard no longer exists, having been replaced with Clan Wars." Rune445566 14:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It was very significant to people training their prayer quickly, and isn't the wiki supposed to report everything they can about runescape? Well, this is part of runescape's history and should be kept! - Pikachao
  • Keep - Even though I never visited there, and now never will, I acknowledge that this is (or was) a significant money-maker for many many free-to-players and pay-to-players alike. It deserves to have its own article - much like the much less significant Lathas' amulet and Carpentry. This should just be added to obsolete updates category, and maybe have an image of what it is now added. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:24, 3 July 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 keep. 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wily hellcat[edit source]

There are already two articles (hellcat and wily cat) which cover basically everything that is said on this page. Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 05:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Wily hellcat is a separate monster from hellcat and wily cat. See RS:G. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 12:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per C Teng.--Derilith 12:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose My wily hellcat Dgnret would claw you for suggesting he is like a wily cat or regular hellcat....except he died in last quest. For real though, I have heard many people say that Wily hellcats are like the ultimate cat in the game, so it is a different critter and deserves its own page.--Degenret01 13:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose My wily hellcat agrees with Dgnret ~kytti khat 03:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose-Different npcs and like Degenret my Willy hellcat would be none too pleased with this. 03:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose- As per C Teng. Prayer-icon.png Matt File:Smite old.png|25px 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Runescape:Granularity. Besides this comment, this VFD has not seen much attention in the past week and therefore we can assume that the unanimous opposition is a consensus towards keeping the article. Archiving. Endasil (Talk) @  20:56, 6 July 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 keep.

Mod Hasmo Riot[edit source]

Delete or Merge into "Aftermath of the Bounty Hunter update" As part of the general discussion on in-game non-programmed events, I place this article up for deletion. This riot had no impact on the game and so I think it should be deleted or atleast merged. I'd also like this to be consider as a test case for in-game riot pages in general King Runite1 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep You may want to take a look a few things here. One, it is the "Aftermath of the Bounty Hunter Update" catergory. And two, this has plenty to do with game. A Jagex Mod showed up and sparked a riot. Atod 22:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Soft Keep - It is a prime example that Jagex mods are targets for flaming, and that lots of people were pissed off enough to spam a Jagex mod. Though on the other hand, it's one of the less notable events in the aftermath of 'the update'. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 22:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep - The article shows just how bad things were after the 10th of December updates. While it's nowhere near the scale of the Pay to Pk Riot, it more specifically targeted a Jagex moderator. There's no reason to delete riot articles. Honestly, with all the articles this wiki lacks, I don't see why everyone seems so intent on deleting good articles that it already has. Morian Smith 16:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete All the riots were completly pointless and had zero affect (or is it effect?) on the game at all. Because a bunch of people "got mad" at jagex, most (not all) went back to playing [[File:Drunk dragon.png|Drunk dragon]]Cheers! Atlandy 21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - They had zero effect? I'm inclined to disagree. Shortly after the December 10th updates, Jagex released a statement in which they acknowledged the ranting masses and said that they'd be making changes because they knew the players were unhappy. It's arguable whether they were implying that the rioters were included in those masses, but I'm fairly certain that Jagex was aware of them and took them into account when they made that announcement. Jagex may say that they don't pay attention to riots, but the fact that multiple Jagex Moderators were present at this and other riots shows that, atleast to some extent, Jagex gets involved with these and appreciates the problems they bring. Morian Smith 22:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I think this article is in the appropriate place under the "Aftermath of the Bounty Hunter Update" category. This is a part of Runescape history, and I for one like having that history documented. Player reactions to updates are very much a part of the game. Any large trend in player behavior is otherwise noted, so why not this? Kmarie42 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep- It was big, included a J-mod, and even though the page is fairly small, it was still a separate riot that happened to be at the same time as the other riots.Chef's hat.png Altarius95 The Master Cook! Talk to me Cooking cape (t).png

Delete I never even heard about this "individual" riot, and I'm reasonably plugged in. The fact that this article was created within days of the event (or same day?) is a bit close to expect long-term perspective ... five months later, none of it really matters. "There were player protests" kind of covers it. I personally lost hope after players chose to protest the move of the party room. Way to choose our battles (ha). -pokemama- Pokemama 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It was a big event, a part of Runescape history. It should definately not be deleted, and at most merged into Aftermaths of Bounty Hunter, as that may indeed be where it belongs. It is a peice of RS history that should be remembered.

Merge - With "Pay to pk" riot. --Flajuram 06:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep or Merge - It should definitely be kept. This was a part of the response to Bounty Hunter and other updates and removals. If the page is too insignificant to remain in solitude, perhaps all the riots in response to said updates could be merged? --User:Werd Sebrof 6:36, 6 June 2008 (GMT)

Keep - Of course keep it is the whole point of the wiki to make articles not delete them (that is my apinion).BUT I think that it should say WHY those players started to tease that Mod (I didn't get it =( ).Anteroinen1 15:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This is known as a riot like all the other ones. So I say we should keep it.Steppers2 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Absolutely feather soft keep - It is a good article with good info but there does seem to be a lot of riot articles. Chicken7 >talk 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge - With "Pay to Pk Riot" Is the point of the WIKI to only report about things we, personally, are aware of happening, or things that did & do exist? (no offense, pokemama - oh and hi! :) )This is, after all is said & done a non-sanctioned "Fan Site". As important as the updates & subsequent riots were to the very fabric of Runescape existence, all offshoots of the riots & impact on the game, should be preserved & on the same page, with sub-category links to separate pages such as this. There are a lot of articles about the riots, I agree, but the implications of the community banding together like this, for a common cause, are unprecedented, and should be available for future study. Looking back at it all, even from 5 months later, you have to imagine the emotional rancor of the paying members. Just remember, (as I'm sure Jagex does) if not for those paying members, the game itself would not continue. IMHO The Pay to PK Riots ranks in the top 3 most important things that ever happened to the game.Ge4r 12:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge The Pay to PK Riot and this riot happened at almost the same time for the same reason, they should be merged. Kevin-020 15:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep or Merge This and other riots were and are significant events in the history of RuneScape, having gone on for over 6 months to this day. Even if this article is too small to be kept on its own, let's at least merge it with the Pay to Pk Riot article, perhaps adding it as another section. Thunderbird346 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Soft keep - This is a separate riot from Pay to Pk Riot, even though they were on the same day and protesting the same things. If it is merged into the Pay to Pk Riot, it should have its own section. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Closed - Larger amount of keeps than deletes. we should also preserve history and this riot was not the same as the Pay to PK riot. Chicken7 >talk 05:03, 7 July 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 keep.

Wilderness Riot[edit source]

RuneScape Wiki is not for advertising; before the Wilderness Riot occurred, however, I.P.s were advertising it in the mainspace. (I'll try to find more SPAM edits if I can). If a small niche of Jagex-haters has to promote a riot on RuneScape Wiki, therefore abusing it, no justifications are present for WR having its own page. Imagine Wikipedia's policy on SPAM: If a URL is advertised excessively by users, it can be blacklisted; we really should do something similar. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)

Discussion[edit source]

  • Keep. Other riots get their own pages. Why is this one any different? Just because a few IPs advertised it? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. However, do riot articles serve to illustrate RuneScape's history I wonder?... Planeshifted 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm really tired of seeing all of this "Pay to PK" garbage all over the place. Giving them recognition will only help their futile cause of disrupting RuneScape's community. I would like to see all of these PK riot articles deleted or merged into one highly condensed article. Dtm142 02:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • A highly condensed article highlighting every riot and why, say a single line per event or something? Planeshifted 02:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Something like that. Every riot should not get their own article. Dtm142 02:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'll make a page called Riots in RuneScape or something after I collate information I guess. Planeshifted 02:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
          • There currently is an article titled "Riot". The information could be added there. Dtm142 02:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, I made some changes...Planeshifted 03:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
              • I undid your edits, Planeshifted, because we haven't event decided to delete the riot articles yet. Dtm only made a suggestion. Also, all major riots deserve articles, in my opinion. They're all definitely long enough, too. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • To sum up another issue, a lot of [weight] seems to be pressuring the "community" portion of our mainspace. 75% of RS's population is at least mildly pleased with its current state, yet there really isn't any mentioning of the more "positive" community events of RuneScape--such as parties and weddings. We have riot articles that are over a dozen kilobytes, which is far too much in comparison to the aforementioned positive events. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)
  • Keep - RuneScape is an MMORPG. In an MMORPG, there is a community, one that defines just what the game is. If RuneScape were single player, it would obviously be a total failure, because the community aspects are what define the game and, honestly, keep it entertaining. Now, in any community, there are going to be different reactions to changes and events that occur as a result. I don't understand why people shoot down all of the community-related articles, when the community is what makes the very fabric of the game. Why are riot articles made over weddings and parties? Because bad things happen less than good things. There are "weddings" and parties every day. But there have been roughly 10 noted riots in 9 or so years. If this sort of article interests even a small group of people - say, the people that are interested in RuneScape's community - then this wiki is doing its job. No one likes a dry, by-the-numbers encyclopedia. Morian Smith 04:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How does keeping meticulous and detailed (and biased) articles about riots educate and inform the community? Riots are by and large a waste of time, full of spam and pointless and only appeal to players who are generally immature and have little to no interest in the community in the first place.Planeshifted 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In their current states, many of the riot articles don't inform the community. But, given that you, I, and everyone else on the wiki can improve them to educate and inform in an unbiased way, I see no reason to claim them bad by nature. If you go to, say, the Pay to Pk Riot article and check its history, you'll see that it has well over a hundred edits. Compare that to, say, historical, NPC, item, location, or quest articles, and you'll see that there is obviously gamer interest in the subject. I myself find them interesting, but that doesn't mean I'm a 9 year old that wants Jagex to "Give me back the wild or I quit!". Just because I read an article on stoicism doesn't make me a stoist. Morian Smith 04:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just because one IP vandalized, doesn't mean we should delete the whole page from it happening again. The Wilderness Riot was as important as every riot. If a vandal advertises a page, revert the edit, block the IP, and that's it. This is the wiki for all things RuneScape. One vandal shouldn't keep it from being that. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nothing is wrong with the article. There was a notable riot, it gets documented. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per reason by Chia. Derilith 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Large, notable riot. Ahem, and Runescape related. Rune full helm (Zamorak).pngFIRZENR 10:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I do agree that this is a "newsworthy" event in the history of the game, and something that perhaps ought to be documented. I'm not exactly sure where to draw the line in terms of what kinds of events like this ought to be documented and how prominent the links are to articles like this, but that isn't quite what this VfD is about. If riots are documented within the wiki, this one certainly fits with the others. --Robert Horning 11:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - As was said earlier, other riots have their own pages, why not this one? This riot was an important event in the runescape community as is therefore noteworthy. As long as it doesn't advertise any one point of view and remains neutral I don't see any reason to delete it. Prayer-icon.png Sir Lenehan File:Smite old.png|25px 10:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the suggestion to consolidate the various riot articles into one article. I do not believe a "blow-by-blow" description of a riot provides much in the way of useful information; it is indeed entertaining, but the Wikis serve primarily to inform. I DO believe there is a need for a balanced examination of the controversies behind these various riots. There were real and practical reasons that Jagex made those decisions, and those decisions in turn had very real and significant consequences, positive and negative, for the Runescape player community. These riots (both the spontaneous ones and the staged ones) are evidence of strong dissatisfaction within a segment of the Runescape community and as such are worthy of reporting - I doubt that segment is going to tolerate us NOT reporting on their demonstrations, which is essentially what these are. However, this blow-by-blow rendition does not provide enough background about the controversies that led up to the riot, and it exhibits a clear bias. More significantly, when considering the other riot articles, what information they do provide is repeated piecemeal in several articles when the job could be done more comprehensively in one. The community would be better served by a single article that explores those issues in a balanced and thorough manner and then gives a synopsis of the specific riots and other responses that have evolved from them. Carlobrand 00:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Many riots have their own pages and this one is more significant than many other and should be kept. Rune445566 01:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a notable riot. It lasted for several days, and apparently, a lot of people knew about it, so it's noteworthy. Also, the length of the page should reflect the length of the event; in this case, several days, so several sections should be included. It's history we're seeing here, why not keep it documented? Thunderbird346 04:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge - This riot may be significant, but unlike the other Pay-To-PK riot(s), this hasn't drawn any public response from Jagex. Hence, it needs to be merged with the Riot page or the Aftermath of the Bounty Hunter update page. There's no need to have this page when there's plenty of others on the same subject; adding info on this riot won't hurt them. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed - There is more keeps than deletes. Also, This riot was different from other riots but the issue of each riot having its own article should be brought up on RS:YEW. Chicken7 >talk 05:08, 7 July 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 Basically speedy delete - Christine 20:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

Template:Smithingminxp[edit source]

This template was meant to simultaneously update the minimum Smithing experience on multiple articles, but until today (I removed it while updating the minimum this time), it was only used on Smithing itself. I think that since it was only on 1 article and the minimum experience can easily be updated in the Smithing article (probably easier for those who didn't know they had to update a template until they open up the edit form), that this should be deleted. Swordmagic24 17:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

When I created these, I was under the impression that the min xp was used on more than one page, or that there was some way to make the templates work to show more than just min xp for info, maybe min level and the number of people ranked, but I never really followed through with that project because I have never been great at templates. I don't care what happens to these, I think it is safe to just delete them all. I'll do that now. Christine 20:46, 13 July 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, see here Christine 20:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

Template:Attackminxp[edit source]

It would be easier to simply update the minimum xp for being ranked in the hiscores in the Attack article itself (and Attack is the only article this template is currently used in). Swordmagic24 17:16, 9 July 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. 20:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

List of non-player characters[edit source]

This page is unnecessary and redundant, as one could find a list of NPCs in Category:Non-player characters. The category listing is much more navigatable, and is broken into several pages.

This article lists "all" NPCs in a single file, in a single column, and makes the article hard to read and confusing. The list is incomplete and will probably remain incomplete.

  az talk   17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - That list is incomplete, and not needed, because we have Category:Non-player characters. So many NPC articles are added and the list is never updated. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 16:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete There should be a policy against having a "list" article where a corresponding category exists. See also Drinks, listed below. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 05:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete .... in its current form. One area where the category system breaks down is that you can't list additional information, which is where this page could be useful. If this page were significantly improved to list locations, occupations (aka merchant, slayer master, essence mine wizard, etc.), related quests, and more information in a more complete fashion, this could be a very useful page and go well above and beyond what a category can provide. As a simple list of NPCs, I don't see the benefit of this page. --Robert Horning 14:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per C Teng. Kevin-020 22:36, 3 July 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. 21:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:No item smith[edit source]

This template is very small, and offers no content that could not easily be incorporated into the text of an article where relevant. This makes the template of very limited usefulness. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No reason to have as a template. --Wowbagger421 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - as per Leevclarke ~kytti khat 06:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - per reasons given at Runescape:Votes for deletion/Template:No armour smith. Endasil (Talk) @  20:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - This article is not needed. You can easily just mention that somewhere in the article; you don't have to use a template. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 18:54, 9 July 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 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

Template:Normalmagic[edit source]

This template is very small, and offers no content that could not easily be incorporated into the text of an article where relevant. This makes the template of very limited usefulness. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 04:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It's useless and ridiculous to have as a template. --Wowbagger421 23:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - as per Leevclarke ~kytti khat 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Not only is it small, but it isn't needed. Is this supposed to go on every normal spell page in the wiki? Just mention that it is part of the standard spellbook. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 18:56, 9 July 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 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

Template:No armour smith[edit source]

This template is very small, and offers no content that could not easily be incorporated into the text of an article where relevant. This makes the template of very limited usefulness. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No reason to have this as a template. --Wowbagger421 23:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This template is quite useful, and is doing no harm on any of the pages its on. If it were deleted, all pages it was on would need to be changed to include the text it says - its a very versatile template, its on all dragon items, black items, white items, armoured boots, gauntlets, RFD gloves... (and if its not it should be). Best to leave as is. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Note -- You'll have to subst: the template on every page it's on before deleting. This goes for no item smith and normalmagic as well. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)
Delete - as per Leevclarke ~kytti khat 06:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - the fact that we have "No armour smith" and "No item smith" shows that generalizing a single statement into a template reduces flexibility and makes editing what should be a ridiculously simple article a task for an advanced user. We should never be using templates like this, in my opinion...it makes editing pages exclusive to Wiki veterans, while not giving any real advantage. Endasil (Talk) @  20:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Gaz Lloyd. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:57, 6 July 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 keep. 08:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Drinks[edit source]

In line with the proposed deletion of "List of non-player characters", this is not an article but rather a list of links to articles. I have checked, and all the drinks here are correctly listed under Category:Drinks, which serves the purpose better than this. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 05:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Rewrite - Instead of deleting it, why not turn it into a general page explaining what drinks are with “For a list of drinks click here” included in the page. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 05:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite - I'd have to agree that this could be useful in terms of a general overview of the concept of liquid "refreshment" within the context of Runescape. An article needs to be created here, not just have this content deleted. BTW, I started a stub of a table to begin listing various drinks, their prices, and where you can obtain them to give an idea on how to improve this and other similar kinds of lists. Certainly this needs to be much more than just a bullet point list of drinks in the game. --Robert Horning 15:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite per Robert Horning. It is just of everything on the category, and could be as good an article as food. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 23:59, 10 July 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. 08:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Riot colours[edit source]

I get the feeling that either someone just made this up, or it happened at one event. I've never heard of it at all. --Wowbagger421 23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This is not made up, trust me. I have been to many riots, and I haven't seen one without people wearing either a blue or pink skirt. I was just hearing someone say, "No more pink or blue skirts. Riot must be over." White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge-Though the colours are true it doesn't mean that they really need their own article. The colours should simply be mentioned in the riot articles. 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right. I'll change my vote to neutral. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge- There ought to be a section on riot colours in the riot article, but it doesn't deserve its own page. Morian Smith 05:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge - This does not need its own article, and btw... pink skirts have represented player moderators for years before the riots even started. Rioters are supporting mods no matter what colour they wear ^.^ Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 05:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge - I agree with Morian Smith. The article should be merged with the Riot article. DJ 1337 Man 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge per Morian Smith. It's noteworthy enough to have a small subsection in the Riot article, but not it's own page. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 18:59, 9 July 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. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 23:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Summoning effectively[edit source]

i feel that this guide is hardly effective and has not been updated in ages so i feel that this guide should be dealt with! i do not want it deleted but moved because it is a good lost for what fimilars do but is not at all effective! Summoning uses is MUCH better

I hope I posted the write deletion one Aaroncampf 05:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Feed to Chtulu - The individual skills as well as the Summoning article contain more than enough information for players to figure out how to utilize the skill to their advantage. Planeshifted 05:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Deletion. Per what Planeshifted said. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)
Delete - I would rather keep Summoning uses because it has pretty much all the info used in Summoning effectively but is displayed and used better. Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 22:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

supports deletion its to bulky and full of mis-information! Aaroncampf 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Summoning uses.... I certainly don't think there ought to be two completely different articles about the same topic. If as Planeshifted has suggested that the main skill articles themselves ought to have a section on summoning applications with the content moved to those main skill articles (IMHO an excellent suggestion), __**BOTH**__ articles ought to be deleted. As far as which article is better, I think both of the articles about summoning applications could use a whole bunch of work and neither one is really all that good. Furthermore, they contradict each other. --Robert Horning 14:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Summoning uses per Robert Horning. The second article is about the same thing only better, anyway. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge this article with Summoning uses. Both contain useful information but they do need cleaning up User:Sarkster

Delete as per reasons stated above. However with considerable cleanup, a merge with Summoning uses could be in order. Despite both have the same information it looks like some aspects look more detailed on one than the other and vice versa; together could stand as a passable page. Jamekae 12:31, 20 July 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 rewrite. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 23:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Merchanting guide[edit source]

This page is completely out of date ever since the removal of unbalanced trade and should of been removed a few months ago. None of these info are correct anymore. Rune445566 01:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete it, it is a waste of space and it is completely obsolete.- Blue partyhat.png Islwyn Talk 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not necessarily because this article shouldn't be on the wiki, but because it needs rewriting. This is probably best done from scratch. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 04:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral/Comment - Merchanting can still be done I think by buying items from shops and selling on the GE or buying low and then selling high on the GE. Or isn't that merchanting??? Chicken7 >talk 13:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It is merchanting (I made a fair bit myself that way :-p), but the article in question was largely written way before the G.E. came into existence. If it can be rewritten in a relevant way then great, but it may be easier to start it again in a fresh and up-to-date frame of mind. Much of the information (e.g. the best places and servers to be) may not be correct any more. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 05:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, merchanting in the GE is merchanting, but this article does not cover that part, it only covers the parts that work before. The only part that still works now is "Buy items in bulk at the Grand Exchange that are currently going up in price. Carefully watch the prices of the item and sell them when the price starts going down or stays even. Use the RuneScape Grand Exchange watch on the RuneScape wiki. Players may find the Grand Exchange Market Watch helpful." However this is not very useful and even if it is, it can easily be merged in the the Grand Exchange page. If we are actually going to write specifically how to merchanting in the GE, then we can keep the article and delete the old merchanting tips. If we are not going to do that, we should just delete the page. Rune445566 12:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite - OK so it needs major rewriting. But some merhcnating can still be done. I think we should start from scratch too. But if we want to rewrite it we don't have to delete it; just remove all the content and start over. Or if no one is willing to start off the new page just delete it. Chicken7 >talk 13:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Money making guide. IMHO it makes no sense to have two very similar pages that essentially cover the same issues.... or perhaps more appropriately label this one as an historical page of some sort that is no longer currently relevant. Most of this page was some fairly good advise.... before the Grand Exchange was established and player to player trading occurred with no trading limits. Price ranges and profit margins certainly aren't the same now. If it is turned into an historical page, it should be protected from editing and clearly labeled as something very different from how the game is currently played. --Robert Horning 14:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite per Chicken7. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite, completely out of date.
  • Delete and merge what little is still useful into the money-making guide or clearly label as obsolete and protect from editing.Peacefulsage 00:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite, it needs some work and i would completely volunteer. --Pepijn 07:20, 15 July 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. 06:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Summoning uses[edit source]

The article is extremely opinionated and not NPOV. When various authors try to add NPOV it is very often changed back. Additionally, most of the information is already in the pages for summoning familiars, or could be added there for easier referencing of that information.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Degenret01 (talk).

Keep You're joking right? It's a guide. Guides aren't supposed to be NPOV last time I checked. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)

Keep per Earthere. Besides, it's still under construction; it can be improved. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep if it gets an overhaul and meets our standards. Delete if it doesn't. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 03:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Examine its edit history. Improvements get deleted. Article should, instead of being deleted, be moved to "User:Aaroncampf/Summoning Uses" and he can link it to Summoning at the bottom. That would meet the style of this wiki.--Degenret01 03:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete I'm fed up with the constant edit wars going on this article, please see the Edit history for a long list of useful edits being reverted by Aaroncampf. He claims that the article is his (as in Talk page), and I feel that most of the article's contents are his opinions (i.e. biased view). Most of so-called Summoning uses are paraphrases from the Summoning article and Summoning familiars article. There is absolutely no need for this article, and should have been deleted a long time ago. There's another article called Summoning effectively which seems to be exactly another version of Summoning uses. (Note that that article is also Vfd.) Based on our Speedy deletion policy, if an article contains a "large bias", it can be speedy-deleted, so why bother on voting for deletion? No offense to you Aaron, but the article's edit war is getting ridiculous.   az talk   03:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Agreed Azliq, the article is very opinionated, and has been controlled by aaroncampf. I remember very well when this article was created and have felt it should be deleted for sometime, simply look at the edit history or talk page to see how this seems more like the subpage of a user rather than a wiki article. 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


dont kill it!! this actical is based mostly on facts! i use basic reasoning skills math and data from tyhe main summoning page to back up EVERY thing i do! if you have a problem then tell me i do not controll the page and if you feel that i have i will fix it but i have put in a TON of work! and i would like this page to get the respect it has earned! if you think anythijg on there is not for fact then tell me other then that not much is biast. fither more I WAS JOKEING i do not own the page i was jokeing around and there are no eddit wars unless you are tlking bout him and yet that was a war but so what i let him win it anywaysAaroncampf 06:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Azliq7. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 18:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite How about somebody bans Aaroncampf from editing until it is rewritten? It should be closer to NPOV, even if not perfect. It is a good idea, terribly implemented.1diehard1 22:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

what did i do! i just harmlessly eddited it whats the big friggen deal?? and there are no eddit wars the socalled war was with 1 guy who i let win btw!Aaroncampf 23:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- ffs, guides aren't supposed to be NPOV.

And don't touch Aaroncampf. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)
This article is not a guide (i.e. Summoning training), but an explanation of uses of the Summoning skill (Summoning uses). (Otherwise, it would have been called something else.) Thus, it should include all possible ways of using Summoning, not just the effective ways of using it. Regarding Guides not being NPOV. "In most cases, no. Guides, when well-written, illustrate the best paths to accomplishing something." Read these sections within the RS:NPOV: "Undue weight" and "Attributing and substantiating biased statements".
  az talk   06:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Some of the arguments for deletion here are plain ridiculous. Deleting an article because a user is controlling it! So if someone started deciding that Firemaking was their page and stopped people adding stuff it would get VfD'd....? If it can be re-written, then do so. If not, merge with Summoning. If aaron is breaking policy by edit-warring, temporary bans etc. PS: I'll have a go later King Runite1 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - NPOV isn't a rationale for deletion.... it is a reason to rewrite and clean up. Tag it with a NPOV and move on. The Summoning article is far too long to effectively incorporate a good strategy guide on how to apply the summoning skill in depth. I'm not saying this article is perfect, but it is at least an attempt to build a strategy guide for the skill. --Robert Horning 03:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Comparing this article with the Firemaking article is ridiculous. This article has been created, editted over 250+ times and "protected" from further editting by Aaron. Aaron decides what goes in and what stays. It is his opinions and only his matters. Please see the edit history. I know it could be an useful article, but this article needs an extensive re-write, possibly from stratch. If the entire article needs to be rewritten, why not just delete and start over? See the Prayer training article and talk page. Btw, a largely-biased article can be considered for Speedy-deletion.

Pages containing original research or a large bias. For example, "According to a poll I conducted among my friends, RuneScape member subscriptions are too expensive." This doesn't help at all and it's personal opinion. These pages will be deleted.

RuneScape: Speedy deletion policy

  az talk   06:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this argument straight. You think this should be deleted because Aaron is overly protective of this article and displaying "ownership" over this article? While I would agree that such behavior is discouraged, it isn't useful to turn an edit war over to a VfD discussion. This is an interesting Wikipedia policy that talks about this kind of behavior. While not RS-Wiki policy, it is bad etiquette to be so disruptive. Use the talk page, and if necessary, flame away. If there is genuine consensus that the article simply should be deleted and re-written from scratch, simply edit the page and start over again. --Robert Horning 13:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't the one who nominated the article to be deleted. I just supported the one who did. But anyways, the article is being editted for the better. And I'm going to take out my "Delete" vote.
*yawn* I just lost interest in this article, and I'm going to focus on other important things...   az talk   13:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Most people voted for keeping it! you can nolt just delete it because you want to reguardless if anyone has some stupid idea of ownership you should add it back and not disreguard the votes! plus if you hate it rewrite it.

Keep/Merge: All right, so it could've used a good clean-up. And yes, Aaron can be a bit possessive at times. I don't think deleting it was the best option; as I said, it would have been nice if someone had cleaned it up instead. If not, we could edit the familiars' entries with the new info... Sir Revan125 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has been deleted! Please stop voting! 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)
Wait a minute... There's no consensus notice or anything! It was just deleted out of the blue? Who declared consensus? Butterman62 (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus. God I hate you guys,. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
the VfD had about 50/50 support. per robert just deleting because of "NPOV" rationale is insufficient. Oh, and the keep arguments were stronger than the delete arguments, so yeah. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 14:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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