Avatar Wiki
Advertisement
Avatar Wiki
Profile image change   Profile quote change  Votes for deletion
Archive filingcabinent.png

Speedy • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15

In order to speed up the process, it can be beneficial to withhold your vote when you agree with the majority. Adding your own vote will reset the "five days without comment" waiting period for consensus.

Votes for deletion is where discussions on whether an article should be deleted are held.

  • Ensure you are familiar with our deletion policy. When nominating a page for discussion here, add {{VfD}} to the top of that page.
  • Use {{vote delete}} to support deleting a page, {{vote keep}} to support keeping it and {{vote merge}} to support merging the information from a page into another page. This is still a discussion; provide a reason for your position.
General toolbar
show/hide (all)purgereport bugs
Yakone's village [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted.

Please do not edit this discussion.


Delete.png Delete — Very simply, there is not enough information relevant to the village itself to justify an article. Some minor additions could be made to the article describing the location, but I do not believe it would be enough. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 13:29, September 12, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — For me, it's just not notable enough in the story to have a dedicated article. It does not exist in any shape or form or anything outside the Skeletons in the Closet episode, which in my opinion makes it part of the Skeletons in the Closet episode and it should really only be on that article. Even when it comes to Tarrlok and Noatak, all you can say in reference to this village is that they were born there. Virtually all of that flashback story involves them going elsewhere for a camping trip. Also, the fact that it has no in-universe name contributes to my opinion on this as well. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 13:36, September 12, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I agree. We don't know enough about it. Dcasawang1wall 13:41, September 12, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I also agree with what was already said. Gligo's in love with Azula 14:40, September 12, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I agree that we do not have enough information about it to warrant its own page. IᖇOᕼ'ᔕ ᒍᗩᔕᗰIᑎE TEᗩ (wallcontribs) 21:26, September 13, 2020 (UTC)

Avatar The Last Airbender Online [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted.

Please do not edit this discussion.


Delete.png Delete — Per the precedent set with the VfD for Avatar: The Four Elements, this is a closed fan-site, so it doesn't need a dedicated page. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 01:26, September 25, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I don't see the relevance of this fan page in the wiki. Dcasawang1wall 02:36, September 25, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — Per the above, though I feel like we could be having this discussion on every page of a fan site/other Avatar site we have, so perhaps a War Room about the removal of them all is more suited? Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 07:17, September 25, 2020 (UTC)

Avatar Wiki:Pro-Gamers [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted.

Please do not edit this discussion.


Delete.png Delete — None of the members in this group are active, and there does not appear to have been any activity from the group itself in quite some time. Unless there is someone that wishes to take over and revive this group, I think it should be deleted. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 10:45, September 23, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — Per HoT. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 11:08, September 23, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png DeleteIᖇOᕼ'ᔕ ᒍᗩᔕᗰIᑎE TEᗩ (wallcontribs) 07:08, September 24, 2020 (UTC)

Delete.png DeleteZacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 10:37, September 24, 2020 (UTC)

Roku's waterbending master [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page kept

Please do not edit this discussion.


With similar previous discussions in mind, I present Roku's Waterbending Master. I believe this is a page that we don't necessarily need, since the information in it's entirety is 100% relevant for both the Roku article, as well as the article for The Avatar and the Fire Lord. This, coupled with the fact that this character has no voice lines and only appears once and is only ever mentioned this one time, I don't think an entire article needs to be here about him. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 04:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — I think the page must be kept, because each Avatar's bending masters must be mentioned in separate pages. Even if the page is less important, this page must not be deleted. My suggestion is try watching the episode which this master is in and write about the duel where Roku sent him crashing straight to the Royal Palace by making a massive wave. Even the profile picture is important. Also, what about the other bending masters, eg. Sud. This page too has less info but is of importance. It would be better to keep it. They say that little info makes a big difference (Yohan Mavely (wallcontribs) 07:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

Keep.png Keep — I don't see that any of the reasons you have brought up Zac are reasons to delete the article. As had been mentioned before, the fact a character appears in only one episode or does not have any voice lines is irrelevant on whether their article should be kept. It doesn't matter if these points are brought up in conjunction with others, they are irrelevant in a deletion discussion. Regarding the point on it being 100% relevant to the Roku article; the character of Roku's waterbending master is not a subset of Roku in the way that a member of an organisation might be, so the idea that this information can just be included on Roku's article separately makes no sense here. The mention of the episode also makes no sense, as character and episode articles are entirely separate and cover different things. The information included on the article is relevant, and I would say there is just about enough content for it to be kept. Therefore, since in my view no justification for why this article should be deleted has actually been given, I vote to keep. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 10:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I was more thinking along the lines of, this character exists solely within that flashback. it's as if he does not exist at all otherwise. he doesn't have any history that can't also be put on the episode article, or even Roku's. And they don't cover different things. the article is entirely inside that one flashback from the episode. there's no information from any other point, so yes all of the information could fit perfectly on the episode page without any irrelevance. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 11:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The fact he only appeared in a flashback or only in one episode is irrelevant. You keep bringing it up every time in these deletion discussions as a criteria for whether a character should or should not have an article, but it has no relevance here. Does his article repeat things that happen in the episode; yes, because that it how the character articles work. They do not consist of information external to the episode, rather reflect the episode as they pertain to the specific character. Sometimes it can be argued that there isn't enough information/history to justify a character article, or it can be merged with other similar characters with shared history (the Earth Kingdom sages article, for example). For this article, I believe there is enough information (though as noted above, just barely), and there is no clear article to merge it with. Merging with Roku's article isn't merging, it is just deleting the information and saying "he is also mentioned on this article, so that will do". HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 13:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with HoT on why we should keep the article. I think that it's not important whether the character had lines or how many times he appeared, but whether there is enough information focusing solely on him to warrant an article. Although it is pretty short, I'd say that the page covers enough about the waterbending master to be kept. Gligo's in love with Azula 17:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Moon [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted

Please do not edit this discussion.


Delete.png Delete — There is no content on this page that isn't already covered elsewhere more appropriately. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 20:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — This is a recently created page. Actually I am the one who had the idea of creating the page. I am adding info into this page because I think the Sun (not created yet) and Moon pages must be given importance separately as well, since they are the original sources of the respective bending, namely firebending and waterbending. I know there is enough information of them in other pages, but they can given a separate page to help the wikians learn about them and at the same time, add info. I created it for a sole purpose, they must be given separate importance as well, not just joint importance. So, it will be appropriate to keep them while I continue adding info on them (Yohan Mavely (wallcontribs) 20:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC))

Delete.png Delete — Even if all the available and relevant information from the franchise is added to the page, I don't think there is enough to deserve its own article which content is not already on Tui. Dcasawang1wall 20:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

But what about the effect of the Moon on waterbending and bloodbending? I know this means taking info from the entire franchise, but......lets wait for a few days and while I continue on the addition of info into the page. Also, in case of Tui, she's a spirit. Moon is spiritually connected to her but it is a celestial body and if we take real life examples, then it needs a separate page, adding info on the effect in real life (if necessary), effect on the bending, the Moon spirit, the Full Moon, history of significance of the moon in the franchise. The same applies for the Sun.
Also, like dragons, they are sources of bending, so that's another point to take. But they are original sources of bending (Yohan Mavely (wallcontribs) 20:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC))
The effect of the moon on waterbending and bloodbending is already completely covered on those pages, so no need to repeat again on a separate page. I have no doubt more bloat can be added to the article, but it would be just that, bloat. There is no relevant, new info that isn't covered elsewhere already. Info in relation to Tui is already added there and should be expanded on there if you feel it's not sufficiently covered (without bloating the article with unnecessary detail). Writing about the moon as celestial body just falls outside the scope of the Avatar Wiki. The same also applies for the sun. Lady Lostris 20:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Very well,....I concede defeat.....Well, the page can be deleted if you wish.(Yohan Mavely (wallcontribs) 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC))
Animatics of Avatar: The Animated Series [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page kept

Please do not edit this discussion.


I don't believe this article contributes with new relevant information to the wiki. What little it adds can easily be put in the respective articles for each episode under their trivia sections. Otherwise it only works as a list for animatic videos that rarely have anything different from the final episode. Dcasawang1wall 20:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I agree. It would be one thing if these animatics were conceptual or showed an earlier thought process than what we ended up getting, but the article only has information that we already know from the final product. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 20:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — I have to disagree. Honestly, even if it were just a list, I think that it would be useful for anyone searching for information on the animatics. I always considered the argument that information could just be put into the trivia of several articles problematic, as the trivia sections tend to be overly long anyway. To have a place to put all content of a certain type - such as in this case - even if not all that much is known, helps to keep order. In addition, the animatics were released to the public in official media which already makes them at least a bit noteworthy. DyingFlameTsui (wallcontribs) 21:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I am putting vote delete for this, but I agree that some of the information can be moved to other more relevant articles. The reason I support deleting this is that the existence of animatics for scenes in certain episodes is not notable, but an incredibly standard part of the production process for animated shows. I don't find the fact that these videos were later made available publicly to be an argument for them needing an article. As I noted when this deletion was brought up on the Discord server, the article can be summarised as "Animatics for scenes in several episodes were created during the production process and later made available on the official Nick Animation YouTube channel.[ref]" This sentence (adapted as needed) can be added to either the episode trivia, or what I would consider a better option the individual articles for each Book. If there is something in a specific animatic for an episode that is notable (for example, a large difference to the final episode) then this could be noted as a trivia on the episode. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 21:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — I disagree. Even though it is just references to where the animatics are available, it would me much easier to simply look at the existing page than have to go through multiple in order to find what you are looking for. Although it is not likely that many people will actually use this page, it will greatly help those who do, therefore I vote to keep it. latest?cb=20110527184922💛💚 Kyoshiyangchen22💚💛latest?cb=20110527184922 (wallcontribs) 21:48, 18th January 2921 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue with this logic though, is assuming that these are in any way notable when stacked all together. At least if it were on the individual episode articles, then it's relevant to the episode you're already reading about. What would entice somebody to want to research this standalone article? Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 22:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — While I agree that this information can (and should) also be added to the respective episodes with a link back to this article, I see no harm in keeping it around, as it is a decent enough page to stand on its own, and it is the easiest way to convey this type of info. Since not all episodes have animatics, it's informational to have one page listing all the episodes that do have one, which is a better format than having to go around all episodes to find this particular trivia or having things like "This episode is one of few to have had an animatic released, the others being X, Y, Z." Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 08:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep.png Keep — Well, I first thought that this page could possibly be submitted for deletion, but after some contributions by other community members, I gave up on this possibility. But I was shocked when it was in fact put for the same. As you know, animatics are really rare to find today, especially of ATLA and LOK and if you take a look at videos, they have quite less views. Thus, I was excited to add these info into a page, hoping that such content would be readily acceptable. Also I am planning to add pics of the episodes and differences into the page. Also, though it looks like a table page, it does have info already, Initially, I planned of writing in sections rather than in tables, then I thought that this would not be acceptable, so to simplify things, I created the tables, due to which the page looks odd. But still, writing these info in related pages, don't you'll think they might be less noticed, although trivia is largely read? So that's why it is better to keep these info in one page. Thus, I vote to keep it (it's reasonable for me to keep my page rather than delete it, unlike the previous two discussions that I had started). Yohan Mavely talk 18:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to be clear that my view (and I am sure the others as well) towards deleting the article is not due to the quality of the content itself, but rather because I feel it is unnecessary to have an article detailing the animatics in this way. Nothing in your response has convinced me as to why this needs a separate article, and cannot just be added to the relevant episode or other articles. The fact these videos have a low number of views is irrelevant to the wiki and has no bearing on whether the article should be kept; increasing viewership is for the uploader of the videos, not us. If the intention/desire is to have this information detailed somewhere (which I fully support), then I feel the inclusion on the other articles detailed is more than sufficient. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 21:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
What's the harm in doing both though? Have the general overview and then add the piece of trivia to each page leading back to the general overview page where users can find all the animatics, which they otherwise would not have found, lets they click through all the episodes.
@Yohan: one note though, uploading many more images to that page may be cluttering things too much, just already putting that out there, but to echo HoT, we do appreciate you making the effort to create this page! Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 23:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The reason why I don't agree with having both is mainly because I don't see this new article as necessary. It's not like any other article in the wiki and not very enciclopedic in my opinion. I could see that compilation belonging to a blog or a Discussions post if you want to offer people a place to find them all. The whole content is trivial and we don't usually have articles for just trivia. Dcasawang1wall 01:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
What's not encyclopedic about it? It's different because it's not about a character, episode, or event of the show, like most to all of our pages are, but the fact that it is related to the creation process of the series and was important enough to be included on the DVDs and later released online via official channels makes it noteworthy enough for the wiki to have a page on it. If this was a short page that could be harmful for our SEO, then this would be a different story, but as it stands, the page is long enough and contains info that is apparently rather hard to find in one collective place, so why not be that one place that does offer that info on an overview page? Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 08:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that it is not complete knowledge on something related to Avatar, it's just a list of links to pages outside the wiki. Several interviews have also been released in different official media, including the DVDs. Should we also have a page to list all interviews with links to YouTube? The information we should show is what is extracted from there, the new content or the script if you will, but not the fact that it just exists. If these animatics offered us some new information, then I would be okay with keeping the articles as we could explain these points, but they don't. And also, the fact that it's still an orphaned page makes me think it's unnecessary. Dcasawang1wall 22:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
What's not "complete knowledge on something related to Avatar"? Did you know which selected episodes had animatics released somewhere at some time? I didn't. I definitely agree that this page is not the "well of information" most other pages are, but it does offer something that isn't offered anywhere else: a complete overview of the animatics and which episodes had them release, when, and where, thus helping any interested fan to possibly track them down should they be interested.
As for the interviews, we actually have several transcripts about interviews or roundtable discussions, so ... I guess we also just show that they exist. That said though, that is a moot comparison, cause animatics were part of the creation process of the show--common or not. It's also just still an orphaned page, because I doubt anyone wants to go around to all the relevant episode pages and the TLoK e-book to add a link to this page if the community would end up deciding it should be deleted. That's just inefficient work then.
But anyway, we're starting to go in an endless back and forth. In the end, it just boils down to this: those that wish to have the page deleted should be the ones bringing the proof as to why it needs to be gone, not the other way around. Currently the following has been stated:
  1. DC: What little it adds can easily be put in the respective articles for each episode under their trivia sections.
    This is countered by "Since not all episodes have animatics, it's informational to have one page listing all the episodes that do have one, which is a better format than having to go around all episodes to find this particular trivia or having things like "This episode is one of few to have had an animatic released, the others being X, Y, Z."
  2. Zacatero: "the article only has information that we already know from the final product"
    Does it? I legit didn't know which episodes all had animatics for it. The only overview page we have for this is the one currently up to be deleted. That the visual info from the animatics matches the final scenes is not the info the page is giving.
  3. HoT's suggestion to add it elsewhere.
    Lol, I actually agree with what he said, but I don't see a reason in that why there also cannot be an overview of all the episodes that do have animatics released somewhere. If someone is interested in that tiny tidbit of information, then what is the harm in offering it to them in a full-length page?
The way I ultimately see it, going by the fact that this is the only way to provide an overview, which is something that cannot be properly covered by just adding it to other relevant pages's trivia section, is that the following question needs to be answered in order to have a case to delete this: "Who is having this page hurting?" It is not harmful for our SEO (may even be good, since it is apparently hard to find all of these animatics). The page can also easily be linked to from other pages, thus ensuring a continued flow around the wiki, and it would just be one more extra bit of info we offer on the wiki. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 12:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the big difference is that animatics, at least in this form, are a universal thing for animated programs of this nature. All episodes have animatics which is just a part of the animation. It's no more special than the actual scenes that went to the final product! It's not like concept art that gives us insight into what could've been or what was being planned... this is just a part of the animation process. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 13:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Shimsom Big Island [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page merged

Please do not edit this discussion.


Merge.png Merge — All the content of this article (all three sentences) can just be hosted on the Geography of the World of Avatar page (where one sentence is already noted), and the article itself can redirect to that page. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20210808202057 SOAP 11:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge.png Merge — Per LL. I agree with deleting the article and adding its contents to the Geography of the World of Avatar page. In my opinion, it is too short for an article and there's nothing on the page that can't be added to the geography one. Gligo's in love with Azula 11:47, 25 January, 2021 (UTC)

Merge.png Merge — I agree. On the chance that more about this location is expanded in (hopefully) future content, then maybe it can warrant it's own page, but for now the amount we have about it can just be on the Geography page. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 13:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Elemental Sphere [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page merged

Please do not edit this discussion.

I don't believe anything has changed since the last time this page was deleted. The elemental sphere wasn't considered a topic that warranted its own article and it still doesn't now that it has more information. We don't have articles for Avatar-level techniques and the history of each use of the sphere can be included in the article of each Avatar or even in the section called Simultaneous bending for the Avatar article. Dcasawang1wall 19:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — Even the Avatar State, which is a superset of this technique, doesn't have its own article and is just a subsection of the Avatar article. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — I agree, I don't think it warrants a dedicated article. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 20:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge.png Merge — I also agree that there is no need to have an entire article dedicated to the elemental sphere technique, but I think that we could add more about its use in the "Simultaneous bending" section. Gligo's in love with Azula 20:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge.png Merge — I edited the page to remove some of the information that I think is unnecessary or beyond the scope of the article. I agree with DC and Gligo on merging it with the "simultaneous bending" section on the Avatar article. This would seem to be the obvious place for the information to be noted, in the same way that instances of the Avatar State are noted on this article as well. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 20:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge.png Merge — My mistake, in my first vote I thought voting to delete was voting to merge into the Simultaneous bending part of the Avatar page. I do want to vote to merge it. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 20:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge.png Merge — Definitely agree to merge it with Simultaneous bending, perhaps as a subsection to note its uniqueness compared to other forms of simultaneous bending. SorcererSupreme21 (wallcontribs) 01:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge.png Merge — After having seen the changes made by HammerOfThor, I think the page is quite short and not fit to be a page now. Prior to making a draft of this page, I thought of writing all this info in the simultaneous bending section of the Avatar page. But this technique being a 4-elemental one was quite prominent. While all the other techniques were of two or three elements combined (rarely I saw three elements together), like Korra using an air vortex while lifting boulders during her fight against Kuvira, her use of the same while attacking Unalaq with firebending, etc. Now I myself agree to have this page merged with the simultaneous bending section but a lot of info must be added to that section along with the usage history of the elemental sphere, like the usage history of simultaneous bending done by the Avatars, like how the Avatar State has a long usage history. Yohan Mavely talkAppa Face (Signature Use).png 06:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Four Nations Forum [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted.

Please do not edit this discussion.


I do not think this article fits in with our mainspace. If it were a real new "canon" series, then yes, but just a fan-led discussion I don't think warrants an article. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 23:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — Per Zac. Dcasawang1wall 23:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — The amount of content on the article is pretty limited, and given that anything coming from the discussions would be considered fan opinion, I don't see what else could realistically be added. I don't see any reason to keep the page. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 10:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — Agreeing with the others. If we allow this one on the wiki, then we would be obliged to create articles for all the other fan discussion channels on Youtube as well - after all, where is the difference? I would also like to note that I am now happy we nuked the channel's contents from the wiki. After their clickbaity promotion for this series, and seeing what the series actually discusses (other clickbait stuff like worst ships lol), they are 100% not reliable as a source for canon content. DyingFlameTsui (wallcontribs) 15:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — Even I agree with deleting the page, I thought the page on a 'series' was needed, but later thought that being a YouTube exclusive forum series, it might not be needed, plus the fact that the YouTube channel was recently removed as source in a recent discussion. Being a forum series isn't really that interesting either, prior to this there had been several of such videos. So I agree with the deletion. Yohan Mavely talkAppa Face (Signature Use).png 21:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Juji [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted.

Please do not edit this discussion.

Juji isn't an actual character, it's a role that Pabu played. None of the Nuktuk roles have ever been considered proper characters, and all the information about them is already covered in the article about the mover. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 21:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — What Omni said. Dcasawang1wall 23:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — Per above. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete.png Delete — Yes, it should be deleted. After all, Nuktuk didn't have its own page, simply because everything is mentioned in the page of Nuktuk, Hero of the South. This is a problem that I face every time I try to write a page on something that should actually be merged with an already existing page! Yohan Mavely talkAppa Face (Signature Use).png 18:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Avatar Wiki:IRC guide [show]CLOSEDedit
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:

Page deleted.

Please do not edit this discussion.

Delete.png Delete — IRC is no longer an active part of this wiki. This along with all other subpages for this guide. Also, probably Avatar Wiki:IRC access should go. – TechFilmer🍍 15:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete.png Delete — Yeah, I don't see the need to keep any of the IRC related pages. All of the relevant information for the Discord server is noted on Avatar Wiki:Chat, so these pages aren't really serving any purpose. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 17:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete.png Delete — I agree, IRC is no longer needed. Yohan Mavely talkAppa Face (Signature Use).png 18:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete.png Delete — For sure. Could probably do well as a redirect for Avatar Wiki:Chat, but deleting would be just as well. Zacatero • (Wall) • 15  15 18:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

No active discussions. Refresh?
Advertisement