Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape private servers (2nd)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by Pilotguy. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Runescape private servers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unsalvageable in current state. Delete and rewrite needed if subject is notable. Exarion 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am unable to make head or foot out of what this article is trying to say. I am unable to see how this article (or subject for that matter) improves Wikipedia's coverage of RuneScape. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Were it not for the first sentence, I'd have speedied this as patent nonsense.-- IslaySolomon | talk 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I think this is a exact copy of an article deleted a long time ago, making it elegible for speedy deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape private servers J.J.Sagnella 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete What a friggin' mess. Caknuck 17:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, no assertion of notability and with good reason. WP might not be censored, but there's no need to keep unreferenced mention of copyright-theft which (as the article states) is often used to scam RS players of their in-game items. If the term were covered by secondary sources it could possibly be mentioned on the RuneScape article, no need for a seperate article. QuagmireDog 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultra delete - no such thing that isn't a copyright theft and/or a password scam. Considering this has been deleted twice before, it could also be speedied and salted under CSD G4. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as reposted material in violation of WP:NOT and lacking any sort of verifiability or coverage in reliable sources. Salt namespace as well. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:SNOW.--Exarion 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete tagged for recreation of deleted material. James086Talk 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.