Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dota 2 Heroes


 * 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 redirect to Dota 2.  MBisanz  talk 14:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Dota 2 Heroes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GAMECRUFT. This article should not exist, when nothing of the sort exists for League of Legends or any other MOBA. It doesn't even explain the heroes and what they do at the very least either, so I don't see the purpose. A list of heroes in the Dota 2 article would be removed, so how would this stand? ~ Dissident93  (talk)  23:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Prisencolin (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Dota 2.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I think we can be bold about this, this is a clear case of a WP:GAMEGUIDE like article. I can't believe this has existed since November 2011. --Soetermans. T / C 14:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets notability guidelines for standalone lists with the number of sources present. We have articles on the fictional characters of in many video games and series, and Dota 2 happens to be one of the most widely played games in the world. Also, you can't really consider this to be a guide because it doesn't "read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box" Thus burden of proof lies in proving that article is an explicit game guide or fancruft rather than making vague waves towards such descriptions. --Prisencolin (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't pass WP:GAMECRUFT #5 (class and attack type), #6 (most of the sources don't comment on the heroes themselves, but are either guides or their opinion), and #7 (obvious). None of the heroes are independently notable, and a list of them on the main article would be removed, so how does having an independent, but terribly written article, sidestep that? This page belongs on the Dota wiki, not Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  02:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any sort of rule that says guides can't be used as sources, only that wp can't be written AS one. Also, most of the sources very much do talk directly about the heroes as a grouping or even about specific heroes. Perhaps WP:LISTGLOSSARY can satisfy this article for notability? It is essentially just a list of terms.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing, this is very WP:GAMEGUIDE-like information, merely listing in-game information that is only useful for gamers. --Soetermans. T / C 08:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Being "only useful for gamers" is a pretty subjective quality. I mean in that case we might as well delete the section on gameplay on the main dota 2 article.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Detailed, in-game information like what role a hero plays isn't something Wikipedia should focus on, unless it's written as very basic information. Also, stuff like "The best Dota 2 heroes for beginners" should not be used as a source, I mean, what exactly are you trying to reference from it? ~ Dissident93  (talk)  22:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That source was meant to try to establish notability. Maybe I'll remove it if it's clear that this is notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect: These are the information that we do not want to have in an article because they are considered as WP:GAMECRUFT. Lead information can be merged to the main article in case this hasn't been covered already. If someone manages to turn it into List of Dota 2 characters with decent quality, I will withdraw my vote and go for keep, but as of now, this article is a violation of WP:GAMECRUFT. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect as a non-notable list of WP:GAMECRUFT failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS, that focus on the list as a group rather than individual entries. Does not meet WP:LISTN and does not warrant a WP:CFORK from the parent Dota 2 article at this time. The available sources–although usable–do not provide material to write a meaningful article without WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT and with WP:WAF in mind. Such content can be summarized in the parent article with characters that are notable for the game's gameplay. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there are any characters that are more welll known than the others, so I'm not sure if that's an optimal solution--Prisencolin (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2016 (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.