Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calia 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 delete. Core desat 07:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Calia Menethil

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No out-of-universe information, not notable.  Pagra shtak  18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions.  Pagra shtak  18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom 19:38, 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 01:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per WP:NOT, WP:WAF and WP:GAMECRUFT. This article should be deleted, because it is excessively detailed, impossible to sources for, and it puts undue weight on one aspect of the game. Excessive detail means that this article contains trivia, and that some details are included for their own sake, without any context and without any helpful addition to aid the reader's understanding of the topic. Plot summaries are only appropriate in Wikipedia where they aid the rest of the article by providing necessary background information. Furthermore, the article, within the context of the topic it draws its notability from, puts undue weight one aspect: the lore and plot of the game, and other specifics. See WP:WAF and WP:NPOV. This aspect does not deserve more attention than, for example, the reception and the development of the game. Finally, we have to look if the alternatives for deletion (WP:ATD) could be employed to save the article from destruction. Merging is an impossibility here, because none of the content is properly sourced, and simply moving the excessive detail will not solve that problem. Also, the problem of putting undue weight on one aspect of the game will not disappear with a merge. Editing to remove the bad parts of the article would leave nothing there. The content is not only without sources, but it is also impossible to find any reliable secondary coverage for it. This is an important requirement, as Wikipedia could verbatim repeat all that is said in a certain game without it. See also WP:VG/S. User:Krator (t c) 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no siginifcant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Lots of refs in wikis and blogs is not enough. - fchd 06:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:FICT's guidelines into List of Warcraft characters. Which, yes, has notability concerns of its own, but the set of characters has a better chance of establishing that than a single (minor) character. Sourcing is a cleanup issue, not cause for deletion. —Quasirandom 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect - Has no notability. Judgesurreal777 22:46, 15 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.