Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in Warcraft lore


 * 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 as WP:OR (!votes without reasons, saying only "cruft", or keep because the nominator hasn't a reason were discounted. But of the rest there was a consensus that this was OR. -Docg 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Warcraft lore

 * — (View AfD)

Although slightly sourced very crufty article. Computerjoe 's talk 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not for the reason given ("cruft" isn't a reason to delete) but because the entire article is original research. Might be keepable if it could be adequate sourced, and probably notable given that this is one of the largest gaming franchises. Tarinth 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is sourced. Xombie 00:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But the sources do not suggest the argument put forward, only the information used by the writer. Thedreamdied 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Thedreamdied 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep no valid nomination reason given. crufty is no different than "I don't like this" and as such is very inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: While the nomination reason isn't valid, that doesn't mean the article itself is fine. Please do not make the same mistake as the nominator and discuss the article rather than the nomination. --Scottie theNerd 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but a bad nomination reason is still a bad nomination reason. If an article is going to be nominated, there should be a high responsibility to make sure you have a proper reason.  If you can't articulate it, then ask someone else for help.  At the least, picking insulting and demeaning language is highly inappropriate.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the nominator's responsibility to outline the reason for deletion, but the nominator's phrasing is not definitive nor is it final. The whole point of the deletion debate process is to gather more opinions on the value of an article, and in most cases the resulting debate expands on the original nomination, as is the case here. A bad nomination reason does not automatically make the article a good one. What you're doing is disagreeing with the nomination using a deletion debate version of WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you don't like the nomination doesn't mean the debate isn't valid. --Scottie theNerd 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of not liking the nomination, it's a matter of not accepting the nomination when done so poorly. I'm not saying anything about the article per se (I actually think it would best be a sub-section of some large Warcraft article), but I do find myself forced to reject the initial action.  And while fostering discussion may be important, it's less likely to happen when you start it off poorly.  I see at least two opinions expressed that don't even have an iota of reasoning behind them.  Maybe you should say something about that?  FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What's there to say? The nominator put forward an argument you don't like, we put forward arguments that are more relevant. Just because the nomination doesn't refer to any policy doesn't mean the whole process is invalid. Why don't you put forward your own valid argument instead of "I don't like the nominator's argument"? --Scottie theNerd 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have offered my rebuttal to comments that this is OR. You even replied to me.  What more do you want me to do?  If you want a stronger argument, I don't much care.  My initial concern was that the process was tainted by a poor nomination.   That remains a problem.  So are the bad arguments spoken by others.  I can accept that people who think this is OR have a valid (if mistaken concern).  That includes you.   Other people?  not so much.  Do I really care about this article?  Not so much.  I think it would be better done in the articles on the subjects in question, rather than one base article.  Still doesn't mean I can't speak out against bad nomination reasons.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your responses to our OR concerns are fair enough. I'm pointing out that your initial post was a Keep because you didn't like the nomination rather than the article's merits. If you had intended otherwise, it certainly was not conveyed in that contribution. --Scottie theNerd 14:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of not liking the nomination, that implies I have some interest in the page, a more accurate description is I don't like the nomination reasons given. This would apply regardless of the subject.  I suppose I could have been more verbose, so I'm sorry if that confused you.  Whether the article should be kept or not, well, I don't have the opinion that there's anything sufficiently wrong with this article that warrants deletion.  Clean-up yes, diffusion elsewhere?  Maybe.  But deletion?  Nope, don't see it.  And like it or not, I'm not going to look for reasons to delete an article.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. It even cites WoWWiki! Axem Titanium 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Maybe WoWWiki will take it? --Alan Au 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. In order not to be OR, there would have to be a citation for each claim, not from the warcraft history, but from a source that's pointing out that claim.  Otherwise you're drawing these conclusions in the article.  delldot | talk 18:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: violates WP:OR and uses unreliable sources (WoWWiki, of all things). This article would be better on WoWWiki than on Wikipedia. As noted above, being a "crufty" article doesn't mean automatically mean it should be deleted. --Scottie theNerd 20:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You may object to WOWWIKI as a unreliable source, but the existence of it does mean there is a source. FrozenPurpleCube 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a credible source, so naturally other Wikis would also be considered the same. No one here has argued against sourcing, but arguments have been put forward over the misuse of sources. --Scottie theNerd 05:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can demonstrate where the source given is wrong on this thing, then that would be something, but just saying "NOR!" when it's another site doing the research? Doesn't make sense. Say poor sources, that might be something, though in this case, it's not too convincing.   FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. I do personally find it a pretty interesting read, but a lot of these claims aren't backed by the correct sourcing. Cheers, Lankybugger 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, very crufty -- Selmo  (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I started the article and I must admit that it could definately be classified as original research. However, my dictionary doesn't contain the word "crufty" or even "cruft," so I'm not entirely sure what that means. :) RobertM525 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have CPed it to WoWRP.com as to not lose it completly. WoWRP isn't that occupied with keeping OR out of the picture. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment surely isn't this in breach of the GFDL as I doubt you've credited all editors? Computerjoe 's talk 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Even though I'm usually a vigilante when it comes to helping and working on Warcraft articles, I've been extremely skeptical to this article since it was first created. Whereas I tried to get people to source everything. But, as it stands now, it breaks WP:NPOV and WP:OR. If people can clean it up before the AfD is over, I'll change my vote to Keep, but as it stands I give a weak delete. I would also like to point out that the AfD reason is not the reason I voted what I did, as "cruft" if not a good reason to delete anything. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Give it a little bit, then relist I know this isn't a real vote, but I say give it a bit to see if anybody will source it (I may give it a shot if I have time) and if they don't, relist and let the inevitable do its thing. -Ryanbomber 12:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivia. Combination  14:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Clearly fails WP:OR The Kinslayer 16:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N.  The game itself is notable, but its plot holes are not.  Also fails WP:NOR, particularly WP:SYNT.  Determining whether something constitutes a conflict in a creative work inherently involves advancing a new position.--Trystan 23:55, 8 January 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.