Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft humanoid races


 * 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 The sources offer do not adequately offer verification of the contents of a list that remains substantially original research and continues to be entirely unsourced. Spartaz Humbug! 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Warcraft humanoid races

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unsourced, very likely unnotable fancruft with some plot summaries amongst it.

Despite a notice since June 2007, there were no sources added whatsoever to the article. This greatly questions the article's notability, along with the likelihood that the real world and non-Warcraft players would have no interest in this article.

Along with this, the article appears to be cluttered with fancruft only notable to Warcraft players. With this along with its huge size, it is very likely to attract original research, which would only increase the amount of unsourced material in the article.

Finally, there are plot summaries describing the incidents in many of the various races within this article. Wikipedia is not a plot summary, and thus should not have this type of material in it.

The size of the article is 84 KB long at the start of this AfD, and with the many issues in it, gets nominated for Articles for deletion. IAmSasori 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions.   —IAmSasori 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Keep - I was going to say delete, but remembering some advice given by a more experienced wikipedian on my talk page I went and did a little searching. Turns out the subject of races in world of warcraft is most likely notable, as I found some reliable sources that do address races in this game:
 * http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05/10/warcraft/index.php
 * http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,71848-0.html?tw=rss.index
 * http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=521907&format=print
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/technology/11vide.html
 * The article could use some cleanup and sourcing, but deletion is not necessary.Subdolous 22:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that four sources will be able to cover the entire article, even with clean up. IAmSasori 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That information could easily be added to the Warcraft Universe article, without any need to keep this one, especially since that article isn't exactly bursting at the seams yet. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gaming guide. As per nom, its mostly fancruft and not encyclopedic. Collectonian 22:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Unencyclopedic" is not a valid argument. See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. If a subject receives significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which I have given, then it is notable and should have an entry. That the subject is related to gaming does not change this fact. Subdolous 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utterly non-notable. No real world references. Phil Bridger 22:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just gave 4 real-world references. Subdolous 22:38, 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 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale.  vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT
 * Delete: all the notable content here is redundant with the article Playable races in the Warcraft series. Requesting User:Subdolous to respond to this. User:Krator (t c) 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sources given do not only cover playable races of world of warcraft, they cover the topic of races in warcraft in general. Consider this quote: "One of the secrets of creating a believable fantasy world is to create humanoid versions of every animal you can think of. World of Warcraft, for instance, has cow people, boar people, dragon people, horse people, bear people, bird people, hyena people, rat people, wolf people, fish people and lobster people, and I'm probably forgetting a few." Clearly the subject of the diversity of races in this game, both playable and non-playable, is notable to a reliable, established source. Subdolous 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but coverage of this kind does not warrant a "List of Warcraft humanoid races". The way this subject is discussed in the source you cite (and without doubt in the others) does not warrant a list of races, but rather a discussion of the topic of "Race in Warcraft". This can be better done in prose form, probably in a few paragraphs in the Azeroth article. Why? Because this list consists of plot summaries and trivia, in an amount that out of proportion with actually discussing the subject in an encyclopaedic fashion. I would be interested in writing such a discussion of the subject in cooperation - leave a note on my talk page if you think this is a worthwhile effort. By way of summary: the subject may be worth discussing, but this list should still be deleted as it does not and cannot do that in the proper way. User:Krator (t c) 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's no doubt that World of Warcraft is a notable video game, and an article which can serve as a redirect target for its many races makes a fair amount of sense. This page was created by User:St.daniel in order to shorten the parent article which was over-long. Such child articles, which contain information that would otherwise be included in the parent, are not stand-alone topics, and should be treated as per the parent. -Harmil 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm attempting to reduce the article to just the notable humanoid races (no, floating eyes aren't humanoid, nor notable). -Harmil 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No notability, no references, no out of universe information of any kind, and thus totally duplicative of the character sections of several warcraft articles where they are already mentioned. Judgesurreal777 22:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Harmil and per Subdolus. Rray 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.-- Silverhand Talk 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion.  An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but   Subdolus has found several. Edward321 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The cruft/original research is a sign of a lack of notabililty, and that, coupled with a reasonable understanding of the topics obscurity, is enough to know it doesn't need its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as these Stock characters have no reliable sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Warcraft canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lack of sources isn't a reason for deletion, only lack of possible sources. Also, "the likelihood that the real world and non-Warcraft players would have no interest in this article"? What kind of a deletion criterion is that? The vast majority of the articles on Wikipedia are only of interest to a very specific subgroup of the total readership, it would be silly to delete stuff for that reason. If the article needs cleanup then clean it up, AfD is not cleanup. Bryan Derksen (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, a lack of Possible references, and so far there is no demonstration or hope that a reasonable number will be found. If not enough are found, what does that say about its notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Playable races in the Warcraft series, gradually merge info into relevant game articles. Take out the races already in the other article and you're left with 1 part merge material and about 3 or 4 parts cannon-fodder. Races featured in the different games can get a short mention within those game articles if it's necessary.Someone another (talk) 09:58, 20 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.