Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthas Menethil


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 02:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthas Menethil

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

'''Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.'''

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I think a drive to delete all these Warcraft articles is a magnificently obnoxious contribution to deletionism, I'm fairly sure that this article is significant. Arthas is going to be the chief antagonist in the new expansion for World of Warcraft. He was the protagonist of Warcraft III. The character has had a significant impact on the Warcraft gameworld. I'd rate his importance similarly to that of Elminster in the Forgotten Realms fantasy world - a character whose actions span across several media and alter the fictional world.

Ah, screw it. Go on, delete Arthas. Nobody cares about Warcraft characters. But by God, I'd expect to see every single Pokemon critter entry, every single Final Fantasy character entry, every single Tolkien character entry deleted at the same time. Do I think these are all equivalent? Not really. But I'm sure that a complete stranger to the series wouldn't read about Electrike or Kefka or Barahir. Their articles violate "WP:Plot" and "WP:OR" and "WP:N" too. Well, not really, they don't. Not for a reasonable definition of the terms. But the AfD nominator clearly doesn't agree with a reasonable definition. So I say keep - unless you're planning on cutting every single fictional character's entry that doesn't have a third party source. Allandaros 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Major character in a notable fictional universe, chief protagonist and chief antagonist of multiple games and novels. JavaTenor 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as Fancruft Bobby1011 06:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:FICT. The article is entirely an in-universe plot summary. No indication of real-world context or notability. Google search returned a fair number of hits, but they seem to be limited to passing mention in videogame reviews/guides and fansites so it's unlikely this character has been covered substantially by sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy 07:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DarthSidious 07:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious
 * Strong Keep - He is the main character in both WAR3 (its his face on the cover of TFT), and the second expansion of WoW. I'm going to have to go through all the other characters you've probably nominated as well.


 * Keep - Firstly, the article doesn't feature any fancruft/fanfiction or original research. Also, he is an important character in a famous fictional universe. So, if Doctor Doom, Emperor Palpatin or the Joker have articles, so can Arthas.Dimts 19:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me anything in this article that would pass WP:Plot. Ridernyc 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then maybe give people a chance to improve the article, rather than trying to nuke it (or would that, y'know, make sense?). Would you people be satisfied with novelizations Blizzard has in the Warcraft setting, aside from the computer games, or are those not enough? Allandaros 13:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had seen one ounce of effort by anyone to improve the warcrqaft articles I might agree. But through all these AFD's I have never seen anyone add a single source or rewrite a single sentence. I have also never seen any of the editors of these articles show that they have an grasp of policies. Ridernyc 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The first nomination was over a year ago. shoy  (words words) 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Question Are there any substantial third party publications written about this character? Yamaguchi先生 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I just added a link to an article in Games for Windows magazine which is largely about this character's role in the upcoming expansion.  As this is among the best-selling PC games of all time, there's plenty of coverage of many different aspects of the game in the gaming press, various books, etc.  JavaTenor 09:31, 7 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.