The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it.
The result was Keep
21:35, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
This article violates RS:NIP. The policy only allows articles to be created for items if it is confirmed that Jagex will release the item in the future. Since a dialogue from a character obviously does NOT mean that the item will be released, this violates RS:NIP.
Comments about the first RfD:
- Much of the logic about the keep votes surrounded other unreleased items. That is not a valid argument, since a large number of dissenters from a policy does not make them correct; it just means we have to delete every one.
- It was ruled as no consensus, but it was over two years ago.
- Chicken actually voted to get rid of the article. Wow!
Delete - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 18:13, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Delete - If the page is in violation of a policy, it should not be kept. --Callofduty4 (Talk) 18:22, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Redirect to Nonexistence - A redirect is better. --Coolnesse 18:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Redirect - People WILL be searching for things like this. Isn't there a list of items that have been mentioned, but not created? If not we should just delete all these, make a list and leave it. HaloTalk 18:56, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Redirect - Per Halo. Sentra246 10:00, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Why? How can this possibly hurt anyone? I found the article to be interesting and nothing there is made up. bad_fetustalk 10:04, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I just read RS:NIP, and it certainly doesn't state that you can't have articles on items that have been mentioned in-game. bad_fetustalk 10:15, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes but it does say "there must be some valid proof that shows that the item will be created in the future." There is no proof that it will be created. Sentra246 05:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
- No, it says that the ones with valid proof can be created, but it certainly doesn't say they must have valid proof. bad_fetustalk 08:02, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it does it says "there must be some valid proof". Sentra246 08:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
- "Articles about unreleased items with valid proof of being implemented in the future may be created under normal circumstances. Links and references to the evidence should be supplied. " - and where is the must? >_> bad_fetustalk 08:43, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
- In the nutshell bit it says must. If we take the policy the way you're taking it then it is not really a policy but it's just a suggestion. Sentra246 08:47, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
- The nutshell part is supposed to be a summary of the whole policy. There is no such thing mentioned in the policy, the nutshell part clearly needs to be re-worded. bad_fetustalk 09:20, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
- So your saying if a policy doesn't say must in it it is just a suggestion and therefore is an essay not a policy? Sentra246 10:02, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that whoever wrote that nutshell part epic failed at summarising. bad_fetustalk 10:12, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- But you are also saying that the policy doesn't say you have to have valid proof, therefore the policy really means nothing. Sentra246 10:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying #1 means nothing. bad_fetustalk 10:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- So what do you think RS:NIP actually means? Sentra246 11:19, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- It means that you can create items with valid proof without discussion, and things in #2-7 that are irrelevant to this discussion. bad_fetustalk 11:23, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- And the valid proof this will be made is? Sentra246 11:52, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Again, it doesn't say that others may not be created.
||Articles about unreleased items with valid proof of being implemented in the future may be created under normal circumstances
|— RS:NIP, point 1
- RS:NIP clearly states that an item must have valid proof to be created. This clearly does not. --LiquidTalk 11:59, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't clearly state anything. The only thing it states is that articles with valid proof may be created, but it doesn't say that others may not be created. So stop referring to that stupid policy. bad_fetustalk 12:02, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- For heaven's sakes, use common sense! If an article only allows items with valid proof, then it should stand to reason that if items without valid proof were allowed, it would have to be explicitly mentioned. --LiquidTalk 12:05, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Saying that other pages that don't have valid proof of it being created is the whole point of the policy, what your saying is it doesn't say any article can be created but articles with valid proof defiantly should be created. Also exactly what liquid said. Sentra246 12:07, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Helm, Learn how to read. It doesn't say you can only create articles that have valid proof, it simply doesn't mention the ones that doesn't have valid proof, meaning that this article certainly doesn't violate RS:NIP. You want to get this deleted because it will not be released? Fine, then say so, but don't refer to RS:NIP, as it's irrelevant. Also, Sentra, I didn't get what you said. bad_fetustalk 12:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- What i was trying to say is the way your interpreting the policy is that any article can be created including ones with valid proof. Sentra246 12:10, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- No, what I'm saying is that RS:NIP fully ignores articles like this one, and therefore it should be kept out of this. bad_fetustalk 12:12, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- But RuneScape:Nonexistant item policy is all about Nonexistant items which this is as it doesn't exist. Sentra246 12:47, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but it still has ignored items like this. bad_fetustalk 12:50, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- This is an item that doesn't exist, this is exactly what the policy is about. Sentra246 12:53, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be exactly what the policy is about, but it currently is not mentioned in the policy, and therefore the policy shouldn't affect this. bad_fetustalk 12:58, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't say these can't be made but it says that by saying ones with valid proof can be made. Sentra246 13:07, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- This is turning into a repetition, so I'll not be responding unless you have any other points, and will just wait for the result of the yg thread. bad_fetustalk 13:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Chess, interesting, a possible future update and it's mentioned ingame meaning it should be noted. I'm sure there is a policy about that... - [Pharos] 10:11, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose/Keep - Has proper sources, is mentioned at least once in-game, and is a possible item in the future as shown by citations. I do not see the reasoning behind deleting it when, two years ago, it was kept with less information then and should be deleted now. Ryan PM 10:16, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Jagex has made absolutely no indication that it will release this item. Point number one in RS:NIP clearly says that articles for unreleased items are allowed if and only if it is confirmed that they will be released in the future. If you show me where Jagex has said that it will release the crystal halberd, then I'll withdraw this RfD.
On another note, we do have a precedent for something like this. The crystal halberd might be released; who knows? However, look at RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Dragon ore. Jagex has said that it will probably release it. That's not a definite yes, so it got deleted under RS:NIP. Shouldn't this be the same? --LiquidTalk 11:53, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Per others and my usual stance on such subjects. I voted delete back when I was a noob:
||Redirect Yeh Cheers, Chicken7 >talk>sign 05:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:49, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
- You still are a noob. Sentra246 09:24, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Wait a second... - Why on earth are people who supported deleting RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Granite boots opposing the deletion of this article? They are the same exact thing in principle. Psycho Robot talk 05:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
- Bah nevermind. I got mixed up as to who supported what. Anyways, I say Redirect to Ilfeen. Psycho Robot talk 05:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Redirect - To Ilfeen. Since it seems like the same as the Granite Boots RfD. Per Robot. Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 10:45, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Redirect - to Nonexistence. LordDarkPhantom 12:55, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Merge with Ilfeen - Per Psycho Robot. Exact same scenario with the granite boots. 13:12, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - RS:NIP is the dumbest policy invented. We hurt the wiki whenever we delete a perfectly good content page :/ ajr 13:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with if the policy is dumb or not, it is the policy currently and therefore until change should be followed. Sentra246 13:38, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- You are wrong. Consensus overrides policies. bad_fetustalk 13:47, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- That is why this RfD is open. If were were to just follow the policy, then this article wouldn't exist anymore. ajr 13:53, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Disregard my previous statement i was to tired to think straight at that point. Sentra246 02:38, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - It is an item that is mentioned in game, and if it's mentioned in game surly it deserves something. Look at Lucien's daughter, she has an article just because she was mentioned. 13:59, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Per Zamorak and others. 222 talk 06:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - It is mentioned very clearly by Ilfeen, so it is likely it will once exist.
Some explaination comparing this to "Western Lands"
#This article has a clear mentioning, and not a mentioning by a lunatic ghost with uncapitalized letters
- It is much more likely to exist.
- She says "yet" meaning she is working on it.
I added this list because some people might say: "They are both the same kind of cases, and you wanna keep this one, but delete the other one."
I collapsed this thing, because it isn't about the deletion or not, but about something else.
JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 19:37, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
Redirect and merge with Ilfeen - There might of course be a crystal halberd once, but as there is too little evidence for now, the page should be a redirect until the halberd is actually released.(changed my mind because all of these cases should be treated the same, and this is very similar to Lucien's daughter and the like. I do think this has the best chance of becoming an item once, but so far there is too little evidence) JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 23:35, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - per Chess and Zamorak. Real Not Pure 08:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Merge with Ilfeen - See my opinion on the second nomination of Lucien's Daughter. While she clearly mentions attempts to create one, it's an unsure thing at the moment, so we should move the small amount of information to Ilfeen, until either Jagex confirms not having the thing planned, or it's released. Real Mad 19:32, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Please see Forum:Modifications to RS:NIP, as there are some points supporting and against this, and all items similar. 17:50, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Merge/redirect with/to Ilfeen or Nonexistence if not keep, I find this to be a generally more accepted thing than lucien's daughter, as Ilfeen isn't insulting the player when she mentions it, also the fact it is indeed mentioned in the game guide  suggests it is real just hasn't been added. Archmage Elune TalkHS fetus is my son and I love him. 20:32, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Closed - After nearly 6 weeks of discussion, there is no consensus. This will be kept. ʞooɔ 21:35, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.