RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Dragon ore

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. C.Chiam^Talk 04:05, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Dragon ore

The info on this page deserves mentioning somewhere, but per RS:NIP and RS:NOT#CRYSTAL, 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 - As nom. --Quarenon  _Talk 20:30, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - He said "Probably!", and really gave no other information. User:C Teng/sig 20:29, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - There is other information besides that comment about dragon ore, like a postbag and another Q&A. This is something I'm sure many readers will be looking for, so we should give them all the information we have. User:C Teng/sig 01:32, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Also, you're not spoiling the party... we still have 15,008 articles. User:C Teng/sig 22:52, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Neutral - Re-make when released. (Stop using bullet points people.) Halo^Talk 20:39, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I can't really say on this anymore, both sides have good arguments. Halo^Talk 22:05, May 27, 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. Ryan PM 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. -- Team6and7 ^Talk 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. User:C Teng/sig 22:55, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

If you delete the article, you delete the section... Chicken7 ^>talk 08:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but Team6and7 is saying that all future update articles should be speedy deleted if this requests succeeds. User:C Teng/sig

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 --User:Team6and7/sig 19:24, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per everyone, it is not a confirmed update and because it would annoy Chicken Sentra246 22:53, May 22, 2010 (UTC) Doing something to annoy someone is a terrible reason to do it. Halo^Talk 20:06, May 23, 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure he's joking, though. User:C Teng/sig 21:07, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was a joke Sentra246 07:16, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my bad then. 22:05, May 27, 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??? Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 08:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'd been planning to create this article since December 2009.... [1] Chicken7 ^>talk 09:26, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - While the article isn't speculating, I think that Mod Mark was when he said it. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 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. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 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. Chicken7 ^>talk 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 Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 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.

Exsibilation ^{talk | yey for pie}

08:55, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This update is not confirmed and so this page shouldn't be here. Runeueins ^{Talk #} 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. Runeueins ^{Talk #} 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. User:C Teng/sig 13:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

"Probably"="Yes"? That's news to me. Halo^Talk 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.  @Gaz#7521 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. --Liquid^Talk 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. Rabbit Fear 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. Halo^Talk 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. User:Team6and7/sig 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

Exsibilation ^{talk | yey for pie}

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. Rabbit Fear 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. Halo^Talk 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. Rabbit Fear 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? Halo^Talk 20:00, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - We have no confirmation, only speculation. Mod Mark says there will "probably" be Dragon ore. This shows NOTHING. Furthermore, Postbag 41 shows that, if Dragon smithing IS ever released, it might not even use Dragon ore, but some other sort of metal. This article has no merit, and should be deleted. -- Nightgunner ^Talk 23:11, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not even that is confirmed. "it may be an alloy or composite of other known or unknown metal". Besides, even if it was some sort of alloy, we could always move the article under the appropriate name. Krayfish 20:34, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - Same reasons per all...I can't believe we even posted a sitenotice saying whoopie the 15000th article dragon ore was created. It doesn't even exist or have any confirmation!  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 04:26, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, does "Helmet shop" sound better to you? Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 20:17, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - How do we even know if Mod Mark wasn't being sarcastic? I somehow have a feeling he wasn't serious about the answer. Besides, he said probably, like others pointed out. His answer is not a confirmation that it will happen. BlazeTheMovieFan 05:01, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It seems that part of the reason why people want to delete this article is because it is the 15,000th one. Personally, I believe that there is no relevance to that argument. We should focus more on debating the validity of the J-mod's statement.Krayfish 20:28, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Thre is evidence supporting the content. That, and it would really suck to re-create the article should the ore come out. Icecold531 01:03, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Okay, so, after reading the others' comments, the impression I got is that (1) there is a slippery slope of allowing articles for items that have no confirmation of being released and (2) dragon ore/bars will probably be released at some point in the future at one point or another, so why delete the article in order to create it later?
I agree with both sentiments, and here is a compromise that I think would satisfy both sides-- why not simply redirect dragon ore to the future updates page (the one where Mod Mark's quote is originally from). This page has no information other than the few sentences from that page, so it would make sense.
In the case that a dragon ore/bar update ever happens, we wouldn't be really "deleting" this article at all but actually adding concrete information about the dragon ore/bars. Furthermore, we would also be keeping the wiki as complete as possible by allowing those interested in dragon ore/bars (ie if the type it in the search bar) to directly see Mod Mark's comments as from the original wiki page.--Agamemnus 02:37, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. Redirecting it to the upcoming updates page seems to be a good compromise.Krayfish 02:45, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - No, either delete the article and the section, or keep them both. What is the difference? If you want this, you'd have to propose a policy change or exception, as RS:NIP states that we should create articles for sections on "Upcoming Updates", but RS:NOT#CRYSTAL states that we shouldn't speculate about them or future content. There is no happy medium. Chicken7 ^>talk 07:03, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that section was entitled "upcoming updates". The difference, which you fully know, is that dragon ore is a likely update (just like a dragon kite), has often been joked about by Mod Mark, and he did say "probably", which is neither a "yes" nor is it entirely speculation; thus it shouldn't be redirected to something like the blog that Quarenon links nor deleted outright, and thus blindly following the guidelines which you state is not ideal. Besides, weren't you the one who made this article? If so, and if you believe it shouldn't exist, why didn't you delete the other bit in Upcoming Updates?... :) --Agamemnus 07:16, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

That I was, the one who made it. And there are multiple reasons why I didn't remove the section. Firstly, because after months and months of no one else noticing or removing it, I thought it must've been "accepted" or something like that. Secondly, in my opinion, if he is giving extra information like that (about the owners that wouldn't be happy), it sounds that the ore is under development, planning and/or their writing up ideas. Thirdly, I personally think we should have an article for EVERY "unreleased content" that Jagex has even MENTIONED. Even if they say something like "No! There will never be a Music cape", I still think we should create an article and put that info on there. There are other more minor reasons too. Chicken7 ^>talk 07:33, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand fully, but you seem to suggest that we need articles for every instance in which a Jagex staff member comments on an item which won't be released or will "maybe" exist. So if a Jagex mod does this anywhere on the RS forums (in passing, even), does that automatically make it deserving of an article? Or does having a forum question about an item that becomes mentioned in a Q&A/blog make it notable enough for an article? I'm just unclear on what capacity a Jagex staff should make a comment such that we need an article about it. Also, I think that it is possible for a Jagex staff member to speculate on an item on a forum/blog/twitter post that represents personal opinion rather than the actual direction Jagex is going with their content. --Quarenon  _Talk 20:50, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

The idea was more about Jagex official Q&As, etc. About forum posts, I think only if a Jmod created the thread themselves. This is my personal opinion, as we only cover information that has been confirmed, but isn't content that Jagex has mentioned or denied to ever be in existence just about as interesting? Chicken7 ^>talk 08:06, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree per Chicken. User:C Teng/sig 21:09, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - At best, I would support redirecting to the relevant part of Update:Blog - Q&A: RuneScape Content's Answers, which has the original source of the quote without speculative commentary. The dragon ore section in Upcoming updates needs to be removed or relabelled, because the article title "Upcoming updates" implies that we are certain the update will come out. --Quarenon  _Talk 21:31, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep: I only say keep because many other things that are being developed in the future have pages, such as Love Story, and EW3 and FTP3 both had pages long before much was known. Dragon Ore was said to exist in a postbag. The Mistress of Poison 01:24, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Unreleased content with hints from Mods or the Q&A's should either all be allowed or put on a single page

Gundoggy^{Talk • Contribs • #}

22:01, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - It is a confirmed content, although the other confirmations were not put on that page. (see somewhere above)--MeStarfinder 16:43, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Postbag 41, then it did not do any better at "confirming" this content than did Mod Mark's comment. In my opinion, these articles are blurring the line on RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. For example, we should not have to create articles for every player suggestion for which a staff member says that it "might" happen. --Quarenon  _Talk 08:57, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Agreed with others. It wasn't confirmed, it was a possibility, meaning it may or may not happen. Babyvegeta93 15:59, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

If we have articles like Lucien's daughter and Crystal halberd, then we should be able to have an article on this. User:C Teng/sig 21:23, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - I will agree that the possibility of it should be noted on the wiki, but I think it is a waste that we have a page on an update that has not been confirmed, or has been given any definite information. The entire article is simply something that could possibly-POSSIBLY, not definitely-happen.Boxian77 21:46, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - per Gundoggy. CPLstone ^{Talk HS} 23:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It doesn't exist, if Jagex does make a Dragon Ore, we can remake it then. Tako Manz ^{Sign me!} 23:35, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is the same as Kharidian Desert Diary Sentra246 11:08, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Good point, and I would agree with you; however, there is additional info about dragon ore there other than what was on the Q&A. User:C Teng/sig 19:37, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.