RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Crystal halberd

Crystal halberd
First nomination

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:
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) It was ruled as no consensus, but it was over two years ago.
 * 3) Chicken actually voted to get rid of the article. Wow!

Delete - As nominator. 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. 18:56, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per Halo. 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. 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. 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. 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. 08:02, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it does it says "there must be some valid proof". 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? >_>  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. 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. 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? 10:02, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that whoever wrote that nutshell part epic failed at summarising. 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. 10:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying #1 means nothing. 10:20, 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... - 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. 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? 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:

Cheers, 06:49, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * You still are a noob. 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. 05:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bah nevermind. I got mixed up as to who supported what. Anyways, I say Redirect to Ilfeen. 05:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC)