Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance (Warcraft)


 * 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. The only attempt at finding sources (first "keep" below) shows only trivial, passing mentions. An article which has been tagged as unsourced for a year, and for which no good secondary sources are found (plus the other reasons from the nom), has no place on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Alliance (Warcraft)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An entire year has gone by without an attempt at adding sources. Along with this, it has plot summaries and unnotable fancruft.

With the lack of sources, this article is most likely unnotable to non-Warcraft players and the real world.

The article contains WP:CRUFT which may develop original research, continuing the trend of increasing cruft with no sources.

Finally, there are plot summaries within this article, something Wikipedia is not. These issues are most likely not to be resolved without an Articles for deletion and is justified a discussion. IAmSasori 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Did some looking, looks like factions of world of warcraft are notable:
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/arts/07eve.html
 * http://select.nytimes.com/iht/2006/05/13/world/IHT-13globalist.html
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/technology/11vide.html
 * http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2005/12/30/new-world-of-warcraft-alliance-race-rolls
 * http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/
 * It's academically interesting enough to be used in research about MMORPGs in general, as well as coverage in articles in the New York Times. Therefore, the article subject itself is notable regardless of the contents. Cleanup may be necessary but deletion is not. Subdolous 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as fails WP:FICT. The so call sources are only fleeting mentions; harldly sources at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions.   —IAmSasori 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale.  vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT
 * Keep - what's next, nominating Mario? User:Krator (t c) 02:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments at Articles for deletion/Horde (Warcraft) which hold just as true here. Interestingly, any source that is cited for Horde (Warcraft) is almost certain to be equally valuable to Alliance (Warcraft) and visa versa. -Harmil 15:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per almost everyone else here. Rray 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.-- Silverhand Talk 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You meant "transwiki" not "redirect". -Harmil 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion.  An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but Subdolous has found several.  Edward321 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Horde deletion, lacks sources and likely to continue as such. Quatloo (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ? I'm confused. It looks like the Horde discussion isn't closed yet. Did you mean "per your !vote in the Horde discussion?" -- Swerdnaneb 15:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I don't know whether articles without sources should be deleted or not. I thought articles with no sources, citations or references SHOULD be deleted, however I'm trying to get Metalcore and some related articles deleted seeing as how they have NO sources or any of that, and the people show no interest of putting any up, HOWEVER, everyone who has talked about the issue seems to be in favor of keeping the article, and most are even saying that it's okay to have articles with no sources or references, just because they are notable.  If this is the case then this Alliance article should be kept and the Horde article should be brought back. Navnløs (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Folks, if you want to rescue this, find and add cites.  I know nothing about this game; fill me in. 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Bearian (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no point to this article from what I could read. Tavix (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.