Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense of the Ancients

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Defense of the Ancients
Relevent only for a small fanbase, only a very small fraction of Warcraft 3 players, and too large. It's full of all kinds of explanations which concern the Warcraft 3 engine, which every potential player knows, and the "lingo" section could be applied to Warcraft 3 in general, and most online games in general. Discombobulator 23:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that Discombobulator is the author of the EotA wikipedia page, another Warcraft 3 custom map. Hmm.... do I detect hypocrisy? Gatekreeper 23:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * comment by debroglie: Gatekreeper, you are indeed right - Discombobulator is the author of EotA (Eve of the Apocalypse)... and i agree indeed with Gatekreeper that i smell some hypocrisy here too. Dota is featured by World Cyber Games (as ruberband pointed out) -- clearly this shows that dota is not relevant to a "small fanbase".... i do agree however that this page needs to be cleaned-up a bit. Debroglie 14:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would put this under Pages_needing_attention rather than delete it. Its scope needs severe narrowing, and it may need to merge with DotA_Allstars, but I think the fanbase is large enough (likely the most popular series of WC3 custom maps) to justify existence. Vote: no delete GreedyAlgorithm 00:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: Dota is a very important part of warcraft. Even if you must ignorantly delete every other custom map despite little or no knowledge of their relevance in Warcraft communities, you can NOT justify the deletion of the most popular map in Warcraft history. If such a thing happens, I move to delete every "Counter-Strike" page.
 * Delete it (unsigned by 68.227.220.177, user's first edit)
 * Strong Keep. Definitely does not have a 'small' fanbase. ArcTheLad 00:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment 68.227.220.177 edited my vote of Strong Keep to Strong Delete. ArcTheLad 02:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all fan maps, none of them are notable outside their fanbase regardless of the game in question. This is simply not an encyclopedic topic--do I write about Blood Gulch in Halo? That's a hugely notable official map... but not encyclopedic. Past Vfds have shown there is virtually a consensus on this, at least among non-fans who are outsiders to the topic in question. GarrettTalk 00:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep! Dota allstars has 53700 googles, Defense of the ancients has 119,000 googles... and major mods for other games have their own pages, so why not DotA? Even CS, being an HL mod, has its own page. Hope the frequent editors of this page point out the same thing. P.S.: "Wikipedia is not Paper". Debroglie 01:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, no. You must add quotation marks and browse to the last page of the search to get the true figure, as Google crawls every single forum thread in the world, and those must be discounted as minor mentions of the subject matter. When I do so, it has a surprising 320 unique Googles white Allstars has 366. I expected far more than that(!), but then again it strengthens my case. Sigh. GarrettTalk 02:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable within the fanbase and hence also of interest to those curious about the game. I'm disappointed that Garett would not wish to share his knowledge of Blood Gulch with the world. Kappa 02:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If I could think of a non-pithy way and encyclopedic to write an entire article about a deathmatch/CTF map I would do so. But anything less I would Vfd if I saw it. GarrettTalk 02:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If you would like to see the effect of DotA's popularity, try the Google search again. Defense of the Ancients wikipedia page shows up as number 7 for a search on "Defense of the Ancients". Mind that Google searches are based on the relevance of the page to the search input and also the popularity of the page, which is based off of the number of links to that page. I think this indicates that many people do in fact refer to the wikipedia page for information and I think this is exactly what an encyclopedia page is meant to do. If people consider the information on the page useful and reliable enough to link to it and visit it, I think that the page deserves to be kept. I urge the voters to read the policies and suggestions under Wikipedia general policy pages and find a compelling reason that this page should be deleted. Otherwise, no matter how stupid you think the topic is, enough people find it useful that this page does its job as an encyclopedic page, and that is our ultimate goal.Gatekreeper 03:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep/Cleanup . No worse than other gamecruft, and Wiki is not paper, but could use major refactoring per GreedyAlgorithm.  Anybody want try trimming it down?  One of you "Strong Keep" people maybe?  --Alan Au 07:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to Delete after reviewing the Votes_for_deletion/Tides_of_Blood debate, although a substantial improvement to the page might convince me to reconsider. --Alan Au 07:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: this article might make do with a improvement/editing the point of view to exclude the technical details. However, do consider that Tides of Blood is less of a following than dota, and ToB has far less content than our current edition of the dota article. More and more people are curious as to what dota means... in any case i can just ask them to look it up in Wikipedia (but thats only the case as long as this article survives the VfD)
 *  Strong Keep Keep but Clean The quality of DoTA or the intelligence of its players is irrelevant.  Unlike what discombo claims, DoTA is significant enough in its own right.  It occupys much of the custom game list, has achieved WCG recognition as almost a game in its own right, and is so very widely played I believe this article will even be useful to people outside the fan base.  DoTA is still encyclopediac and not just a "fan map".  To use an analogy, Counter-Strike is also a "fan map".  But what is important is that gameplay is significantly different, and it has such phenomenal success that this article is relevant to players and non-players alike.  I do agree the article has tended to go off tangent or have uneven focus though, needs less technical details.  Ruberband 13:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC) edit: i see Alan's point, lingo section and "game concepts" is too craft
 * Delete. --Scimitar parley 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep! - While I do not like DotA in the least, it is important that an unbiased place for people to understand what it is exists. Karuma 20:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. DotA is one of the most popular WC3 custom maps and I, personally, got a great amount of information from this article. Article needs to be cleaned, though. -- Panu 12:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. DotA by no means has a small fanbase. About 80% of all the custom games up at any time on WC3x are DotA. Personally, I find it pretty uninteresting, but it certainly has enough popularity to warrant an article. -Goldom 15:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This article helped me to learn what is "DotA". I heard about it but don't know what it is. After making a Google search I ended up at this page. Now I know what is DotA, this article should stay even if it has low quality. -- Teoh Han Hui 17:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does it matter if it's a little esoteric? Wikipedia helps people learn about topics they've never heard of before. DotA is popular within a certain community and has its own share of fanatics; people will be curious about it and there's absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to be vacant of useful information. And Debrolgie was right: this is closer to a game in its own right (like a mod) than the conventional "map" where the same old rules apply to a different terrain.  This page even informs DotA players about the game in general better than anywhere I've seen on the Internet. The Warcraft 3 mechanics info certainly does apply to the regular game and other custom maps; however, the information is particularly pertinent in DotA where micromanagement is the key, where a player can elsewhere succeed in ignorance of it. No need to remove this work at all.  Emt 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per previous vfd. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge along with all other Warcraft custom maps in Warcraft III custom maps. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 07:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be a HUGE page. This article is already pretty long alone, and there are several others of its size. -Goldom 00:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Both this article and the others would have to be trimmed if they are to be merged. Discombobulator 12:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As per Goldom, the Custom Games Article would definetely become too lopsided on the DoTA side. Such an article would also have too many LOAPs, TDs, Mauls and Arenas to cover.Ruberband 14:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP: DotA has become, like CS, a game of its own. It has even become a tournament game. The article on dota is really good and detailed, especially on its history. The only thing that could be changed is indeed the lingo part which could be put in another article.zoidberg
 * Keep. It has gained a huge fanbase to stand on its own. I personally came to the looking for information on it. Coffee 17:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. Although I don't play it, I can see that the fanbase is growing. Its seems that everywhere you go, you can hear people discussion about 'dotA'. So, I think its worth keeping this article. -Trueblues 13:23, 19 August 2005.
 * Keep notable game, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't notable Derktar 00:42, August 19, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.