RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 1

From RuneScape Classic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Umm i just suggested a deletion on the page adamant. In RuneScape Classic there isn't any item, place, person, or specific thing known as adamant. therfore i believe the page is kinda usless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moongazer27 (talkcontribs)

True, but the article is talking about the metal, not the item. So its creation is warranted. --Nex UndiqueTalk 23:42, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This article is talking about the metal and several items are made of adamant in RSC. Tollerach (talk) 21:55, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This article is essential and should not be deleted—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

File:KnightPortrait.jpg should be deleted

The file was replaced. Nex UndiqueTalk 02:55, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a newer, PNG version of this image!Portrait.png Droung 20:34, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Various Infoboxes

Deleted --Nex UndiqueTalk 04:05, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Some infoboxes should be deleted. They are:

  • Template:Infobox quest
  • Template:Infobox album
    • We wouldn't have an article on someone's album. It's not necessary.
  • Template:Infobox character
  • Template:Infobox episode
    • We would never use it. We wouldn't have an article on a TV show.
  • Template:Infobox event
    • We would never use it. Even if we hold ingame events, they don't need an article, and this template wouldn't be used (unless someone wants to make a record of events in their user subpage, then I guess this could be used)
  • Template:Infobox location

I didn't delete them, just in case there is any valid reason not to that I overlooked. Nex UndiqueTalk 15:20, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'll just delete them then. --Nex UndiqueTalk 16:27, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape Classic:Admin Power Policy

Redirected to RuneScape Classic:Administrators - The content of this attempted policy is already covered there in in some other policies. Tollerach (talk) 20:06, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

This never reached consensus to be implemented, it just pooped up a few months ago. The policy itself hardly makes sense anyway. Not only that, but what does make sense is already covered in RSC:UTP and RSC:AEAE. It's rather useless and should be deleted.


Support - As nom. Nex UndiqueTalk 21:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)