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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First glance suggests this should be listified, but the more I think about there have to be thousands of these as the intro implies. Certainly their notability would be hard to establish even within the Runescape community, much less outside of it, and if the first entry is any indication this would just be gamercruft. Daniel Case 03:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non-encyclopaedic, fails to establish notability. linas 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there's any reason why a particular glitch is somehow notable, it (and its notability) can be described in the main article for the game. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fundamentally unverifiable, and of questionable importance even then. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless quality citations can be found, eh? WilyD 14:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Strong Delete, direct the creator to the RuneScape wiki, where this depth is more appropriate. This article is pointless, as the only entry is already covered elsewhere. It's getting rather annoying, this habit of RS subpages appearing out of nowhere, for no good reason, when they are covered in a much better fashion on another page, and don't deserve their own separate article anyway. Another example is Stronghold of Security, now a redirect. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this doesn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion WilyD 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm sure there is/was a CSD for duplicated content. I might be thinking of reposted content though. I've changed my vote to Strong Delete. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can speedy for recreation of previously deleted content with little/no change, yes WilyD 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Kill per all. Hyenaste ^(tell) 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I'm a fan of the way the creator used Headline text as the first headline. Hyenaste ^(tell) 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, plus that glitch was fixed ages ago. It's hard enough covering all the current RuneScape info without also including minor things that are no longer even current. Runefire 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BURN TO ASHES Utterly useless. A royal waste of server space! (And I'm usually pro-RuneScape articles) → p00rleno (lvl 76) ←ROCKS 12:15, Friday September 6 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The article is not complaint with Wikipedia:Verifiability (and might never be). Additionally, the extraordinarily narrow topic is non-notable, and the article is written in a tone that doesn't conform with WP:NPOV. John254 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article. Including some notable Runescape glitches in the RuneScape article makes sense. This does not make sense. It is, in fact, nearly incoherent. I might have said merge but there is basically nothing here. Jacqui^★ 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suppose the topic creator was bored and fascinated with Durial's exploits. Ugh, and that writing style annoys me. He's writing it as if he was posting in a forum. --That Jason 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Terminate with extreme prejudice, gamecruft, unencyclopædic, et cetere. ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 04:00, 30 July 2006 (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.