RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Dragon ore

Dragon ore
The info on this page deserves mentioning somewhere, but per RS:NIP and RS:NOT, the fact that this future update is not 100% confirmed means we shouldn't have an article on it. I hate to spoil the party, but I just don't think this topic is deserving of an article on its own.

Delete - Re-make when released. (Stop using bullet points people.) 20:39, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - As nom. -- 20:30, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - He said "Probably!", and really gave no other information. 20:29, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you're not spoiling the party... we still have 15,008 articles. 22:52, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nominator and due to the vanity at which it was intended for. Just looking at his contributions and edit summary tell me all that I need to know to support the deletion of this article. 20:42, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

 Strong Delete explained below As the content is in the Future updates page is see e no no reason to have a seprate page now. I saw the keyboard control deletion request that was up too for deletion but I wonder if a other future update pages were created and suggest they all get speedy deleted once we solve this. -- 22:36, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not why I'm supporting deletion. I'm fine with having articles on non-existant / future items, just not ones that we don't know for a fact are going to be released. 22:55, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you delete the article, you delete the section... 08:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Team6and7 is saying that all future update articles should be speedy deleted if this requests succeeds.

13:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes to clear out what i meant is Strong Delete anyfuture update articles crated in this article creation surge and keep in future updates page sections -- 19:24, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

 Delete - Per everyone and because it would annoy Chicken 22:53, May 22, 2010 (UTC) Doing something to annoy someone is a terrible reason to do it. 20:06, May 23, 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure he's joking, though. 21:07, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Part of an attempt to create 15,0000 articles I suspect. Also, anybody notice a Pokemon in the article? Ciphrius Kane 23:39, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * WTH are you talking about??? 08:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd been planning to create this article since December 2009....  09:26, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - While the article isn't speculating, I think that Mod Mark was when he said it. 01:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above, the Mod's words seemed a bit uneasy. Remake if it is released or more info is released. 01:43, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I feel very saddened by the fact that some of you have referenced me in your reasonings.... Dragon ore has been in UU for over half a year, and despite the hundreds of users that have viewed the page, including many of you I'm sure, no one has removed it or requested a source. But, when I create it as the 15000th article, it seems everyone wants to join in and criticise it. I am adamant that there wouldn't be an RfD if it wasn't the 15000th article. You should go through UU and check for the many other updates that have not been confirmed properly with a "YES ITS GOING TO BE RELEASED". I'm not going to bother supporting/opposing, as it's obvious which way this will go. 08:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Super Strong Keep - NEVERZ FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU, it will most likely come out but for the meantime its good for people searching for this so its fine 08:51, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Nobody bothered to delete the small section, so I don't see why everyone is making a fuss out of it, probably because this is the 15,000th article, imo, but he said probably, which is leaning to a yes. Also, there are plenty of other articles on items that might be created, such as Dragon Warhammer, so why not have an article on dragon ore? Seems a little unfair. 08:55, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This update is not confirmed and so this page shouldn't be here. 09:13, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Dragon warhammer should have it's own page, because it has been confirmed 100%, unlike the dragon ore. 09:16, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a Dragon warhammer article. --Coolnesse 10:50, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - This update IS 100% confirmed. Can't you guys understand that? --Coolnesse 10:50, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. 13:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Probably"="Yes"? That's news to me. 13:51, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see a reason to delete it. We have an albeit vague JMod statement on it, so is no longer player speculation, and is notable enough for an article. There's bound to be players looking for information on dragon ore so we should be there to provide what information there is for them. 16:21, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Not confirmed and thus should not have its own page. In fact I will edit the page now to reflect actual reality.--Agamemnus 16:23, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - This article was probably created as part of the mad rush to have 15000 articles prior to May 22, 2010. Well, it worked, but the articles that were created were all subpar. This is one of them. 17:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - It could well become a larger article should Jagex decide to release this then you'd just have to create it again, so it seems pointless to delete only for it to be remade again should the item come out. 18:54, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a big deal to remake. The ONLY thing on the page says dragon ore will "probably" be put in game eventually. 20:03, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep- per Rabbit Fear and Coolnesse. If it has been hinted of is coming out, we should still keep the article until Jagex makes its decision unless Jagex decides to cancel the update. Krayfish 19:11, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * So when you say "per Coolnesse", that actually makes you automatically wrong, because Coolnesse said that "this update IS 100% confirmed".--Agamemnus 19:54, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I cleared up my point above. 19:24, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, I've removed my comment on keep, I'm not sure, but If you view the Non-existent item policy here., it clearly states ''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, However it also states Commonly discussed things that do not exist in RuneScape, such as various dragon and white items, should be redirected to Non-existent item. ''I actually rather like the 15,000th article to be Dragon Ore, there is some proof it exists as the Moderator did say yes. But I'll leave you to discuss the Non-existent item policy, since it's pretty weighed out wether to change it 21:06, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree that it is indeed unreleased with valid proof of being implemented in the future. A J-mod mentioning the possibility is certainly valid proof. If this article was about a Guthix Godsword, then it would probably be a better candidate of being deleted. That's an item that Jagex has not said anything about and has no evidence of existing. However, we know that Jagex are probably looking into creating Dragon Ore if they actually addressed it. Krayfish 19:28, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I know it wouldn't be much of a hassle to remake but you'd feel pretty stupid if you deleted it only to have to remake it a few months/years later if it ever did come out. Dragon warhammer also has an article but has very little information on it just like Dragon ore but you don't see that being proposed for deletion do you? I would find it bad that the wiki deleted an article just because it wasn't what users may of expected for a 15k article. 21:47, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's because dragon warhammer was confirmed to be coming. They said yes. With dragon ore they said probably. That's the difference. 21:55, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * prob·a·bly adverb in all likelihood; very likely. He will probably attend. From an online dictionary, so probably doesn't mean for certain yes but means it's highly likely. Just because a J mod makes a joke at the end, doesn't suddenly mean they were just joking a J mod is a person too. 10:35, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * While true, what is the harm in deleting and then remaking if they ever decide to introduce into game?  20:00, May 24, 2010 (UTC)