Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in the StarCraft series


 * 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   no consensus. Keeper |  76  02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

List of locations in the StarCraft series

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is unencyclopedic, since it consists entirely of in-universe plot summary. I assume the Starcraft Wiki already has this information. I think it qualifies as a list of minutia. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I had planned to redo this article, as I have with several other StarCraft articles, but I could never find the sources to properly do it up. I suppose we can let it go; any details of note are covered in the other articles, and the StarCraft wikia has this stuff covered more comprehensively than we do. -- Sabre (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the better way of covering things like this is a "World/Universe of [Series name]" a la World of Final Fantasy VIII. This minimizes the in-universe content and creates spaces to include possible conception/reception information. If this isn't possible since sources don't exist, then that's fine, but just to let to you know the possibility exists. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Sabre (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see there has been a good attempt at using citations here, but the sources don't go beyond the novelizations and game manuals. Without significant third-party sources, this subject falls outside of WP:GNG and WP:VGSCOPE. Marasmusine (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the above points and the lack of opportunities for merging/transwikiing, a straightforward delete. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Marasmusine. Pretty straightforward failure of WP:VGSCOPE. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 02:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep looks like a quality article. Think I read once Starcraft is the most popular computer game ever? The only point it seems to me to be close to failing on WP:VGSCOPE is point 5, but the individual settings just about seem brief enough. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's WP:V, too: the requirement that a subject has citations from reliable, third-party publications. Marasmusine (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree that a different name would be preferable, but avoid at all costs 'World of Starcraft', for reasons I hope are obvious. Suggest 'The universe of the StarCraft series'. Anarchangel (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst these two keep comments are nice sentiments, editors would need secondary sources dealing explicitly locations from a real-world perspective to actually write an article. I never found any when I was doing the rewrites of various other StarCraft topics, nor when I had planned to redo this article. Without secondary sources dealing with the design and reception of this particular aspect of the franchise, any attempt to cleanup would be futile. Otherwise you're just left with the primary source plot repetition, the useful aspects of which are already covered in the articles on characters and species. -- Sabre (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: all the relevant plot details are contained in the plot summaries for Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War. Nifboy (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The compromise solution to fictional elements is combination articles like this. It avoids the two extremes: multiple very small fansite-like articles on individual locations, and inadequate coverage by reduction to a bare list or to nothing, which has consistently been the eventual result of attempted merges to the main article. I have for some time now promoted the deletion and merging of  former individual articles on location and other fictional elements &   i hoped for the response that people would not attempt to delete  the combined ones.  There is no consensus that notability outside of a game is required for elements of the game.  Attempts to say so have consistently failed on a general basis--hence this move to remove some of them by the chances of AfD. Obviously fiction has a fictional perspective, and articles about fiction will be about the fiction, though usually secondary sources can be found (of course, those wishing to delete these article normally reject any sources offered).    I wish we could settle it, but this is the way to prevent any settlement and keep us here with these articles indefinitely. DGG (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't throw blanket compromise deals over everything, it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. I don't really see why this has to override the core requirement for secondary sources. I've been looking for decent sources for this article for a long time in hopes of redoing it myself with some proper real-world information, as is the case with the other StarCraft fiction articles, but I've not found any. I've little reason to believe there are any out there, and that leaves us with a bunch of poorly written (some of it poorly written by me, I'm not an outside party in this article), in-universe material that doesn't make much sense to the general reader. Its not exactly like the information in this article isn't contained elsewhere in the other fiction articles anyway, as it only reguritates what happens to various factions and characters from the perspective of the locations. -- Sabre (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep DGG has summerized this quite well. The nominator's concerns are best met through WP:CLEANUP, not deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, do you know of any sources for cleaning it up? I don't, and I've been looking for at least a year. Saying "clean up is preferable to deletion" is all very well, but without the sources is utterly pointless. I'm immensely disappointed if this is the Article Rescue Squadron's idea of "rescuing" articles: all turning up in the same place to say "keep" but not presenting anything of actual use to article writers like myself. If given something to work with, I will be able to rewrite and improve the article myself, but so far this AfD's given nothing. -- Sabre (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as searching for the individual items on the list of Starcraft locations gets numerous hits on Google News and Google Books from which we could easily continue to build this article:, , , , , , , , etc. (at least one reliable news or book source exists for every item of the A and B locations; even “Starcraft“ and “locations“ gets book hits: see here).  As the results demonstrate, these locations have multiple appearances and mentions in numerous reliable sources, which in itself is a sign of notability and absolutely a sign of verifiability.  A thorough going through of these sources should be exhausted per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE in this case as no one can legitimately suggest that the subject is neither notable nor verifiable.  Anyway, as a result of these sources already present in the article, and those that can still be added, the article clearly meets WP:VGSCOPE, WP:GNG, and WP:V.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is probably going to fall on deaf ears, but generic searches don't help, no matter how many entries they return. Some of the ones nearer the top are primary sources such as the novels, but most don't bear any relation to the locations, referring instead to boats, a car manufacturer and Emily Bronte. I need actual secondary sources that directly deal with the locations in StarCraft to write an article, not Google search pages with nothing useful on them, where you don't/can't even point to a specific source within those searches. There's not one source in any of those eight pages that I could use to write a proper, real-world perspective article on the fictional StarCraft locations. -- Sabre (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually many of the sources in those results deal directly with the specific locations on this list, which is why the sources are useful and why they can be used to write a proper spinoff or sub-article on this subject that helps illustrate a notable aspect of the game that is relevant to a large segment of our readers. The actual secondary sources found in those results, such as the numerous game reviews and previews are spot on topic, which is why there is no valid reason for deletion.  Declaring reliable secondary sources to not be as such does not make that claim accurate just as showing someone a banana and having that person defiantly say, "Well, I don't see a banana" does not mean they are not really looking at one anyway.  Clearly these items are covered in reliable secondary source (WP:V) and multiple ones at that (WP:N) and even as is the article is presented in a cohrent and organized and referenced fashion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Get off the idealisic inclusionist horse and come down to where actual article writing is involved. Saying "There's a banana" when there isn't, and when you've not even read that the crate contains pinapples doesn't help either. Nor does posting a bunch of searches and saying "there's plenty of sources" even vaguely help the article writer. Lets take one of those searches—they're pretty much all the same in content: with a few primary sources, a lot of rubbish and nothing useful. Lets take this one since its the longest, and lets go through all nine or so pages of sources:


 * 1) Page 1:
 * 2) Novel, primary source.
 * 3) Official game guide, primary source. Deals with game strategies, not the fictional locations anyway.
 * 4) Car manufacturer, irrelevant
 * 5) Novel, primary source.
 * 6) Game compilation, primary source
 * 7) Official game guide, primary source
 * 8) Car manufacturer, irrelevant
 * 9) Car manufacturer, irrelevant
 * 10) Novel, primary source
 * 11) Novel, primary source
 * 12) Page 2
 * 13) Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
 * 14) Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
 * 15) Biography, irrelevant
 * 16) Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
 * 17) Ah hah! Our first potentially useful source. Unfortunately, the only reference to StarCraft is in the context of the fog of war game mechanic, so irrelevant to this topic.
 * 18) Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
 * 19) Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
 * 20) Something to do with a "Starcraft Corporation" in the energy industry, irrelevant
 * 21) Our second potential source. This one deals with game strategy, not the fictional universe, so is again irrelevant.
 * 22) A science magazine teaching star recognition, irrelevant.
 * 23) Page 3
 * 24) Article about blockbuster films, irrelvant.
 * 25) Tent trailers, irrelevant.
 * 26) Korean source dealing with StarCraft. The references are to multiplayer, with people playing from physically separate locations. Irrelevant.
 * 27) Trival plug for StarCraft, locations are in this case referring to web locations.
 * 28) Tent trailers, irrelevant.
 * 29) Tent trailers, irrelevant.
 * 30) Tent trailers, irrelevant.
 * 31) Picked up because something on plant hardiness locations is above something on StarCraft custom map settings, irrelevant.
 * 32) Use of StarCraft as an example of a "high-tech game", locations refers to stores. Irrelevant.
 * 33) Car manufacturer and high-street locations, irrelevant
 * 34) Page 4
 * 35) Locations part of disclaimer for calendar events stating that these are "open to change". Irrelevant
 * 36) Dictionary-esque reference to StarCraft character, no StarCraft locations involved. Irrelevant.
 * 37) Dictionary-esque reference to StarCraft character, no StarCraft locations involved. Irrelevant.
 * 38) Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
 * 39) "Buzz Aldrin became president of Starcraft Enterprises". Says it all really. Irrelevant.
 * 40) Credit to a "STARCRAFT SERVICE, INC" in a novel, irrelevant
 * 41) Aside mention of Blizzard's games, nothing concerning locations. Irrelevant.
 * 42) A third potentially useful source. Deals with making of a variety of games. Unfortunately, contains nothing on locations.
 * 43) The Encyclopedia of Cheap Travel. Absolutely nothing relevant to the game.
 * 44) Refers to "Leechdoms, Wortcunning and StarCraft in Early England". Utterly irrelevant.
 * 45) Page 5
 * 46) Our forth potentially useful source. This one only states that another game had some stuff in common with StarCraft, but nothing on locations.
 * 47) A how-to for playing StarCraft online. Irrelevant.
 * 48) Player response times in StarCraft and music other games in real-time locations. Irrelevant
 * 49) Deals with game strategy, not fictional locations, so irrelevant.
 * 50) A lovely overview of the highways of Minnesota. Ruddy useless for nearly everything on this planet except Minnesota.
 * 51) Science magazine, not related to game. Irrelevant.
 * 52) Science magazine, not related to game. Irrelevant.
 * 53) "A basic book collection for high schools", irrelevant.
 * 54) Starcraft RVs for the countryside. Irrelevant.
 * 55) Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
 * 56) Page 6
 * 57) Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
 * 58) Starcraft yachts, irrelevant
 * 59) Cars, irrelevant
 * 60) Cars and highways, irrelevant
 * 61) Dictionary-esque entry on locations in Sweden happens to be on same page as a description of a StarCraft item
 * 62) A Plunkett Research, Inc report on Activision Blizzard. StarCraft only mentioned as product.
 * 63) Starcraft RVs, irrelevant
 * 64) "The Birth of the British B-film", irrelevant
 * 65) Something about the defence of Japan from threat of Korea. Irrelevant
 * 66) More cars, RVs, vehicles and irrelevant rubbish
 * 67) Page 7
 * 68) Architectural design that includes a Starcraft Boosters, Inc. Irrelevant
 * 69) Starcraft RVs, irrelevant
 * 70) "The IJC Menomonee River Watershed Study". You couldn't get more irrelevant if you tried.
 * 71) Starcraft strategies used as example of teamwork. Irrelevant
 * 72) A "Starcraft Aerospace, Inc", irrelevant
 * 73) A "STARCRAFT RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS LIMITED", irrelevant
 * 74) Something on computer-mediated interaction, but searches for StarCraft come up blank.
 * 75) Fake ad in science magazine, irrelevant.
 * 76) Novel, primary source
 * 77) Win StarCraft in this competition! I'd rather have a decent secondary source.
 * 78) Page 8
 * 79) Dictionary-esque entries for StarCraft novels, irrelevant.
 * 80) Alternate energy sources, irrelevant
 * 81) Another irrelevant science magazine
 * 82) "Arthurian legends on film and television‎", irrelevant
 * 83) Dictionary-esque entries for StarCraft characters, irrelevant
 * 84) StarCraft listed as one of Blizzard's games, irrelevant
 * 85) "The Virginia Record Magazine", irrelevant
 * 86) Dictionary-esque entry for StarCraft character, irrelevant
 * 87) More Plunkett research material, irrelevant
 * 88) Something on virtual communities, but nothing on StarCraft
 * 89) Page 9
 * 90) We finish on a fifth potentially useful source. This one only has a few aside references to a few StarCraft characters and some game strategies, not locations, so it too, like the preceding 8 pages, is irrelevant.
 * Grand total of useful secondary, reliable sources that meet requirements of WP:V for this particular topic? Zero. Nothing. Bugger all. Conclusion? Stop wasting people's time by posting generic search results without even going through them; simply typing something into a search engine and claiming that "this search contains plenty of reliable secondary sources that attest to notability!" just because it returns results—the fact that they're all false positives seemingly irrelevant—is most unproductive behaviour. The other searches fall foul of the same flaws; for that reason I'm not going to bother to list what's exactly wrong with each result here as well. If you have sources, post the sources directly, otherwise don't try to invent them with these ridiculous Google searches. In those eighty odd sources, only five might come in handy for writing game articles here, and none of them are remotely useful for writing about the fictional locations featured in the StarCraft series from a real-world perspective. I would like this article to stay. I would like to improve this article myself and push it towards GA (you may note that as such I've not registered a !vote in this discussion). But that is all dependent on the sources being there to do so. Only post sources that are actually workable to the article editors like myself, not these pitiful searches with diddly-squat in them. -- Sabre (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which just goes to show that we have clearly enough sources to justify inclusion and future improvement of this article and that this AfD is an unproductive waste of the community's time. Incivilly badgering everyone who wants to keep it is not going to persuade us otherwise.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ....81 books of your search, only a minority of which are secondary sources actually dealing with StarCraft, with these few dealing with elements completely detached from the fictional locations. Which one of these sources from your search is actually a valid, reliable secondary source in your eyes to improve this article? The one on Minnesota highways? The one discussing Buzz Aldrin as the president of an unrelated company? The river watershed study? The encyclopedia of cheap travel? No secondary sources dealing with the topic under discussion is a very far cry from "clearly enough to justify inclusion and future improvement" unless you want to turn this into an article on the locations a Starcraft yacht is capable of sailing to. -- Sabre (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The published novels and strategy guides serve as reliable primary sources from the book search and the previews and reviews that verify these locations from the news searches serve as reliable secondary sources. Encyclopedias traditionally use a mixture of primary and secondary sources and for our purposes locations that appear in multiple games, novels, graphic novels, etc. and that are confirmed by secondary sources not to be hoaxes, libelous, etc. and are organized in a discriminate and coherent list are suitable per WP:LISTS.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep You have an insanely popular series, which features these locations in the games and well as the novels.  D r e a m Focus  21:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. In reading the ininitial nomination, I was struck by the phrase "I assume the Starcraft Wiki already has this information".  This is not Starcraft Wiki. This is Wikipedia. No assumption here. Then reading "I think it qualifies as a list of minutia", I'd have to opine that rather than "minutae", it is relevent information that in this format, is exactly as recommended by guideline.  Wondering why such energy is spent to delete, I did a look over at WP:SAL which specifically states that "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.". Further, WP:LSC states "list definitions should be based on reliable sources" (my emphsis). WP:LIST does not mandate that a list should prove itself with sources to be of equal notability than the parent... only that it should be based on the reliable sources (as found in the parent). That PARENT article has the notability and guideline allows the list as a type of Spinout... an offshoot of the parent. Guideline recognizes that notability for a list is not because of inheritance, as it is THE SAME as for the parent and acquired WITH the parent. The existing list follows the relevent guidelines very well. The parent meets WP:GNG, WP:N. THAT is the notability of the child list. List are an extension of the parent. If one wishes to re-interpret WP:LIST, it might be best to actually change it first.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you're getting this idea of lists not requiring sources from; WP:LIST states that lists are "encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." This is much more encyclopedic prose arranged in list format than a true list; it therefore very much needs to establish notability on its own to justify the significance of the locations of StarCraft, and not just rely on sources elsewhere which are likely mostly relevant to other aspects on the series. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All articles should indeed be referenced; fortunately, most of this list is indeed referenced. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summary, game guide, non-notable. Sources above are not sufficient. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when the article concenrs a notable subject presented in a non-guide like fashion and with sufficient sourcing. Please be honest in deletion discussions.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Way to big to fit into the main article. We break out portions of large articles all the time. For example The Simpsons is split in almost 25 articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep List of this sort are accepted practise as appendices for coverage of notable topics which are too large to easily cover in one article per WP:SIZE. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2009 (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.