Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major cities in World of Warcraft


 * 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 &mdash; since there are some redirect and merger concerns, I'll redirect it to List of Warcraft locations to preserve the history per a suggestion. --Haemo 22:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

List of major cities in World of Warcraft
See also (added by Melsaran):
 * Articles for deletion/Reputation in World of Warcraft
 * Articles for deletion/Player versus player in World of Warcraft
 * Articles for deletion/List of major cities in World of Warcraft‎
 * Articles for deletion/Instance (World of Warcraft)
 * Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft (third nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft)‎

Pure and simple: game cruft.

Only players of World of Warcraft would find this information usable. Per WP:N, it does not have any significance outside of World of Warcraft and its players. IAmSasori 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment On the heels of the RuneScape AfD sequence, and on the still-warm corpse of the original AfD comes another group of nominations from an editor who has five minor edits a month prior to these noms. I make no apologies for sounding cynical, however, I am still getting that feeling that someone is still trying to make a point. I guess I'd feel a little more confident in this whole series of AfDs if they were nominated by an editor who has a little bit more of an active history. I do disclose a conflict-of-interest, as I am a contributor to several of these. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, no evidence of independent notability. Game guide-y. shoy  18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is not notable independently from the World of Warcraft series, but that's only logical since it is a sub-article for the World of Warcraft article. Would you want to delete the article chess strategy since it is not notable independently from chess? And it's not a game guide, it's a game guide when it says "the best strategy to defeat boss X is (...)" or "if you're stuck at one point, you can continue by using (...)". This is merely information about the game.  Melsaran  (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See my response here. shoy  13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - As it is a list of only the major cities, I can see it staying as a minor list aritcle (such as List of Star Wars systems).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions.   —Gavin Collins 22:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete yes, game cruft. --S.dedalus 00:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? That you think that it's cruft doesn't mean that that's a valid argument for deletion. I consider articles on science "sciencecruft" since I am not interested in science, but I don't nominate those for deletion those either.  Melsaran  (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Applying the generic notability test to these kinds of forks doesn't make a lot of sense. We could stuff this into World of Warcraft so that it would pass the letter of WP:N, but that would be rather silly. Content forks like these are appropriate, especially for games with 9+ million players. — xDanielx T/C 07:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, every article like this must prove its own notability, per WP:FICT.  Mi re ma re  13:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The rather new WP:FICT developments are tentative at best. If you follow the discussions there, you'll notice that serious concerns have been raised repeatedly regarding these recent changes, though responsiveness is understandably slow. The new developments of that guideline are arguably at odds with other guidelines, and have been rather blatantly overruled in numerous AfDs (including several for Harry Potter forks) based on wider consensus. Bottom line is take guidelines with a grain of salt, especially the less developed ones. — xDanielx T/C 00:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure I agree with you about selectively ignoring guidelines. Should I ignore any I don't like? We can't go arguing AfDs on what we think the rules should be or might be in the future or used to be - until the guideline says something different, that's what it says. As for Harry Potter, that kind of thing will always have concensus to keep, if not actual valid reasoning. A bit less votecounting and a bit more consideration of arguments from the closing admins in those situations wouldn't go amiss. Do I sound bitter? Yes, I've taken part in a Potter AfD. :)  Mi re ma re  01:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to say that guidelines are useless and we should give them no weight -- just that we should be weary of cases where they may not be accurate codifications of consensus, and we should give them weight inasmuch as we can trust in that accuracy. Maybe I overstated my complaint above. — xDanielx T/C 02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is non-notable fiction. -- Mikeblas 13:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly notable, it's a sub-article of the (notable) World of Warcraft article. There's nothing wrong with detailed information on a fictional subject. As WP:FICT states: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article.  Melsaran  (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No real world context, no reliable independent sources to prove notability.  Mi re ma re  13:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The main article on World of Warcraft gives information about the real-world influence of the subject, this article is merely a "section" of the World of Warcraft article. It has been split off because the section got too long (per Summary style). Saying that every section should provide real-world context is unrealistic, because then we should remove the "Gameplay" section from the Poker article or the strategy and tactics section from the Chess article.  Melsaran  (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The main WoW article proves notability for the game itself, not the fictional elements within, which, per WP:FICT, must prove their own notability if they want their own articles. The rules apply to every article; there's no "free pass" to sub-articles, precisely to prevent non-notable elements of notable or large topics running riot with endless articles providing endless details, which is not what an encyclopedia is about. To give a subject encyclopedic coverage there must be real-world context and appropriate sources, and there is neither here.  Mi re ma re  18:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, possibly merge some information into List of Warcraft locations, though probably not much. We only need to have one location list for this series, and List of Warcraft locations needs to be it.--SeizureDog 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete would say it should be transwikid but I'm sure this is already on wowwiki.Ridernyc 12:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WoWWiki and delete. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I recently did a major overhaul to this article, so I would be sad to see it go. I also agree that World of Warcraft as a topic is quite notable.  Looking at this AfD objectively, however, I definitely think that this article's level of detail pushes it firmly into fancruft territory.  It'd be great to see it transwiki'd to WoWWiki, but as someone mentioned earlier in this discussion, that info is already there.  Perhaps the best course of action is to include a link to this WoWWiki page in the top-level World of Warcraft article. -Rhrad 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Wikipedia is not a game guide — it is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. --Jack Merridew 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, although not a game I've played, the notability of the game is fairly significant and I reckon a segment of our community will be interested in this article and be able to continue editing and therefore improving it. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:54, 18 October 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.