RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 1
Contents
Adamant
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 (talk • contribs)
- 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 87.112.99.131 (talk • contribs)
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! 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
- We have Template:Quest details, which is already used on all quest pages.
- Template:Infobox album
- We wouldn't have an article on someone's album. It's not necessary.
- Template:Infobox character
- We already have Template:Infobox NPC, which is used.
- 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
- We already have Template:Infobox City, which is used.
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.
Discussion
Support - As nom. Nex UndiqueTalk 21:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)