Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pop culture references in 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. The vast majority of this list is either original research or does not come from reliable sources. The concern that this was simply a list of WP:TRIVIA was also not adequately addressed. However. the trivia concern is more minor. I am therefore closing as delete with no prejudice against recreation with good sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs)

List of pop culture references in Warcraft


Hopeless pile of Original Research, impossible to ever reliably source, nothing but what individuals identify as seeming like a reference to another thing. 92 KB of random notes and zero citations. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For why we actually need sources for this, you might want to read User:Uncle G/On sources and content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not grounds to delete an aritcle just because it does not have references. You should use Template:Unreferenced to mark the article as such. It is not impossible to reference such video game material, see Final Fantasy X for a good example how to do so. --Pinkkeith 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been marked as such for a while. As I said, not only does it not have any references, I doubt that it ever can have proper references. You show me a source that identifies what's a reference to something else in world of warcraft and then we can say that it's not just original research. Final Fantasy X makes zero mention of pop culture references within the game; this is nothing but. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the FFX article references content from a video game. It might not be "pop culture references" specificially, but the idea is still the same. If you really want to see references, why don't you add them yourself? --Pinkkeith 16:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the idea is not the same. "There is X in a game" can be cited to the game, but "There is X in a game and it is a reference to Y" is not supported by the game unless you do original research.  The burden of referencing information is on those who add it to the encyclopedia, not those who question it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ideas are the same. You can reference "X" as per FFX and then reference "Y" as per whatever genre it happens to be in. Most of the list is common knowledge and doesn't need to be referenced. --Pinkkeith 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything needs to be referenced. The criteria for inclusion in wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth.  There are a lot of widely believed urban legends that are blatantly false, so common knowledge is no excuse.  Deciding what is actually a reference and what's just a coincidence is a judgement call, and making those sorts of calls is WP:OR.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You obviously never wrote a research paper before. You don't have to reference every little detail that is in an article. You only need to reference those that are either questionable or not common knowledge. For example, if I wrote up an aritcle on US Presidents I woulnd't have to reference "George Washington was the first President of the United States of American." If you are going to go around deleting articles sololy based on a lack of references then more then half of the database of Wikipedia will be gone. Just tag an article stating that you wish to see references, or better yet tag the specific points you want cited, but don't go deleting articles just because there is no references that meets your approval. --Pinkkeith 17:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a research paper, it's a tertiary source. Even in a research paper you'd need some sources at the end, unless all you're doing is stating your own ideas (which we don't do). If I tagged everything I thought I needed a reference, I'd tag the entire article.  Go read WP:V, then read it again, because everything you've said is contradicted by that policy.  As it says, unsourced material may be challenged and removed by any editor.  I've challenged this article, and now I'm saying it should be removed. Our George Washington article has dozens of sources to refer to for even "common knowledge" claims. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is researched, it is just not original research. "Tertiary source" is just a type of research. I think you need to go back and readh WP:V. You also took my George Washington example out of context, please reread what I wrote. --Pinkkeith 17:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not common knowledge if I don't know it. That's why you need to cite a source for verification. Can you cite a source for even one of the references claimed in the article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, it is not common knowledge if you don't know it. The George Washington example I gave you is a classic definition of common knowledge. I'm sorry if you didn't know that before I told you. Again, lack of references is not grounds for a deletion. If you really felt that there should be references then why don't you find the references and add them yourself? It is very clear to me that you just want to see this article deleted and you are trying to come up with any reason to do so, even if it isn't a rational one. --Pinkkeith 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unverifiability is grounds for deletion. I say the article is unverifiable.  Someone cites sources and proves me wrong and I'll change my mind.  Only wanting to include content that complies with our fundamental policies is hardly irrational. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, largely because it is amusing. It is neither "original research", in that there is neither "novel narrative" nor "novel historical interpretation" in any of it.  It's rather a matter of what people have seen and recognized as allusions in the games: the references are the games themselves, and the cultural references they are alluding to.  This isn't the sort of novel interpretation meant by the policy, which was never intended to prevent people from making note of these sort of pretty obvious allusions.  Merger to any of the main Warcraft articles is impractical: a compilation of this extent ought to have a separate article.   There are other practicalities to consider here: if this article is deleted, the insights this article contains will be inserted in other Warcraft related articles on a semi-random basis.  Best to keep this to collect them all in one place and keep them organized. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments" Unless you can cite someone else's source that something is a reference, it's just going on your own opinion.  As for keeping it out of other articles, if it shouldn't be anywhere else, why should it be here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If somebody wrote "And this means the developers at Blizzard really like Napoleon Dynamite and think we should all vote for Pedro" that would be OR that would concern me.  This is just something that anybody can observe.  Now there may be the rare case where two observations don't agree, but that's another matter.  It is also possible there are some good references as this article mentions some of the stuff in the article: .  FrozenPurpleCube 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 1) "Something anybody can observe" is most certainly WP:OR (as is "common knowledge" which in most cases the editor means "common knowledge to their demographic in their location", which is horribly systemic biasish). 2) Not everybody has access to the medias in question (WoW requires a subscription, etc) so this isn't something "anybody can observe". The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reference, however, is a start. ColourBurst 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Something anyobody can observe is most certainly not WP:OR. You think that if I say the sun is in the sky is original research? Everyone can just look up and see that it is there, nothing original about it. --Pinkkeith 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I live in a box and say "I disagree" how can you prove it to me? I might live in a cave and come out at night so the sun is never in the sky for me.  You'd have to be able to cite some book about the sun to prove your point. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, your agruments are very extreme and very irrational. --Pinkkeith 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment See User:Uncle G/On sources and content for an essay that talks about requiring sources for everything. Including "the sky is blue".  ColourBurst 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is just one person's opinon. If someone wants to be a radical sceptic, that's okay. But we shouldn't be using radical notions as being a basis to delete articles. --Pinkkeith 19:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think your response about living in a box shows a touch of absurdity in your position. How is a book supposed to convince you that the sun is in the sky? It won't. You'd have to observe it yourself to know. This is a common problem in philosophy. See Plato and the shadows in a cave. For that matter, that you have to have a subscription to WOW isn't a valid objection, as it's still publicly accessible. I can't read a book without going to a store or library that has it, so I don't see a difference with WoW? Sorry, but your reasoning is not at all convincing, but rather detractory. You might convince me with some individual entries, but as a whole, no I can't agree. FrozenPurpleCube 19:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's absurd, because the point is that wikipedia editors themselves are unreliable as sources of information, but they can point to other sources that prove what they say is true. The trouble with WoW is that these aren't internal to the universe or stated explicitly anywhere, they're all inferences that people make, and those inferences aren't there for anyone to check, someone else has to make the same inference to agree. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but they are there for anyone to check. You can play WoW and see it for yourself.  Or find some movie on Youtube in some cases.  In any case, the arguments you used have served only to undermine your position with.  Sorry, but I just find it hard to respect you now, you really haven't convinced me that your concern is truly legit. FrozenPurpleCube 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it absurd to think some people's knowledge of pop culture is different than that of the typical American's (or insert whatever country here)? Are we supposed to assume people know certain cultural practices in Japan when Japanese anime refer to it, for example?  If not, why do we assume the same for this article?  ColourBurst 19:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the absurdity is arguing that a person who lives in a box, and has never seen the sun will be convinced with a book that it exists. Your concern however, seems more like an argument for clarity in writing any entries in this list to fully describe whatever references there are.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete the whole page violates WP:NOR. Whisp e ring 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Passes WP:NOR, keep. Whether or not this page is necessary, I don't know, but I'm not supporting a deletion on Original Research grounds. If you feel any of the references are too obscure to be obvious, then just remove those specific parts editorially. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think some can be removed for being obscure, you're saying the article is dependent on the editor's knowledge of the subject rather than any sources they can consult. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You misinterpet my usage of the term obscure. By "obscure" I mean things that aren't necessarily references. In other words, if some character has a "Super Saykin" power, that's a Dragon Ball reference. However, having the same hairdo as Billy Crystal wouldn't necessarily be a reference. It still wouldn't be Original Research to say the hair was the same, but it would not be proper for inclusion unless the character was also named William Krystal or something similar to confirm the intentionality of the reference. In other words, this article does not violate WP:NOR, though some of its items may not really be references. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, the bulk of the references are self-verifying through a simple comparison of the referring work and the work referred to. An example: the cheat "WhoIsJohnGalt" is undeniably a reference to Atlas Shrugged; there is no other plausible explanation.  Those that aren't so explicit and obvious (I'm skeptical of the dance moves, and the supposed Jungle Book reference is a stretch) should be sourced or removed.  Whether a statement of fact is so obvious that a specific reference is not needed is the kind of common sense editorial judgment we need to make all the time, and the comparison of quote X to quote Y to find that they are identical is not itself original research unless it is not obvious.  Would you need a source stating that two biographies about a "Franklin D. Roosevelt" are in fact about the same individual named "Franklin D. Roosevelt" instead of two different people with the same name?  Would it be original research to make that determination based on the obvious content of each book?  Postdlf 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And if someone disagrees? what do you cite? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not our place to determine what is "obvious". This is a global encyclopedia - it is very possible that somebody who isn't well-versed in American literature to understand a reference to John Galt as part of Ayn Rand's literature. ColourBurst 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why Atlas Shrugged is also a cited reference, to show the origin of the phrase for those who aren't familiar with the book. I notice no one has answered my Roosevelt biography question.  Why wouldn't a source be required for the assertion that the two books are actually talking about the same individual, if neither biography references the other?  Postdlf 02:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Doesn't violate WP:NOR because the game itself serves as a source that can verify these. There are many other articles in this same format, and none have references on every point.  I don't think they're necessary.  There is room for improvement, some info doesn't seem like real references, but the fix is deleting the bad statements, not the whole article.  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How can the game itself verify "The male troll offensive spell cast animation is identical to that of a Hadouken" or "barrels = donkey kong" ? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can verify the spell cast animation in Warcraft from the game, and verify the Hadouken part from Street Fighter. Both are sources, so no original research is needed.  And is it really necessary to respond to every "keep" comment?  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not a vote, so I'm answering the arguments made. Yours just goes back to the same point: requiring people to look at two different things and make a judgement for themselves that they are the same. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the game and seeing for yourself isn't original research? I'm pretty sure it is.  ColourBurst 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't original research. Original research is coming up with a thesis statment and collecting data in order to support it. If this article was about a book do you think that going to the book and reading the book would be research? --Pinkkeith 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thesis statement: X is a reference. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is more like a book report then a original research. I don't really see "X is a reference" as a thesis statement for original research, it is more like a book report. --Pinkkeith 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From Book report, A book report is an exposition giving a short summary of a book and a reaction to it. In other words, observing the primary source, summarizing it and then providing your own reactions to it. Your reactions (e.g. thoughts and opinions about the book) is the original research. —Mitaphane talk 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From the same Wiki article that you posted: Emphasis usually falls on aspects of the book related to the subject matter seen in an academic group of studies. This "book report" (or this case, "game report") is placing an emphasis on popular culture as it relates to the subject matter of the article. Reactions to something is not research, it is just an expression of an opinon. --Pinkkeith 18:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not for original research, or a particular editors interpretations, thoughts or feelings on a matter. It is for citable information that can be supported with reliable third-party sources, which this article isn't. The Kinslayer 19:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in this article that expresses a recaction to the game or the popular culture references in the game. It just lists the references. The citable information is the game itself much the same way that a book reports citable information is the book itself. --Pinkkeith 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Any entry that categorically states 'X is a reference to Y' without a citation to back it up is putting down their own opinion and should not be reported as a fact, which is the whole point of Wiki. (Reporting facts I mean.) As an example (and I'm aware this may not be the best example, but oh well.) The Napolean Dynamite reference is based on dance moves. However, Napolean Dynamite himself is aping Jamiroquais dance routine and is indeed dancing to one of his songs, so it would be just as likely that the designer who put the dance in was a fan of Jamiroquai and not Napolean Dynamite. For all we know, without an official statement, the designer has never even SEEN Napolean Dynamite. Without a citation, what we have is just one editors opinion of what the dance is reference to. And it's not just this one entry, I'd say 90% of this article falls under the same description. The Kinslayer 12:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete for unencyclopedic fancruft, although certainly enjoyable. The problem here is that it's not really original research or any of the other obvious reasons for deletion.  It's simply an extremely long article on what is basically trivia.  There's no particular educational or cultural significance to any of this information, but it is probably all accurate.  In fact, my guess (without looking at the article history) is that it was once a part of the main World of Warcraft article and was spun off by editors who realized it would always be unworkably long and didn't add anything to that article from an out-of-universe perspective.  It's not a bad article, it's just one that more appropriately belongs on a fansite instead of this encyclopedia (in my opinion). -Markeer 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I do agree with you that it is trivial knowledge, but if it is fancruft I'm not 100% sure of. I can see where someone who has no interest in video games might think so, but there might be others out there where this could be interesting knowledge, even if trivial. Your guess about its origins is my specultation too. --Pinkkeith 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd say that the list is a compilation from all the Warcraft games. Now this may not be something you personally care about, but there are folks, like me, who do find it interesting. FrozenPurpleCube 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Read a bit further down, as I don't like it is also a bad argument. Popular Culture is itself a subject of established notability.  You can find it on places like imdb, eeggs.com or a dozen others.  Not to mention books and television shows.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one person's opinon, it is not Wiki policy or a guideline. --Pinkkeith 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, to quote Common knowledge: "as always, if your edit is challenged, no matter how convinced you are that you're right, you must cite a reliable published source." There are no reliable published sources for the claims of this article.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're taking that quote out of context. I don't think that the editor meant that you should reference "the sky is blue" or other common knowledge statements. There is a line that has to be drawn to week out the radical sceptics. --Pinkkeith 20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, "the sky is blue" isn't always a correct statement. During a sunset, it is reddish-orange. During night, it is black. In fact, the sky article actually has a reference for "the sky is blue during daylight" and gives the reason why it is blue. ColourBurst 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point that Uncle G's essay makes--you need to cite those things, and you end up with a more accurate encyclopedia for it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But these things are cited. But you just seem to dislike that the game itself is the source, as well as the other works mentioned.  Citing every item would just be putting a reference to Warcraft and a reference to the other item (the Fountainhead etc) on every single item.  "The sky is blue" is a terrible comparison, since the sky isn't a source while every item on this list is.  "Common sense" or "obvious" has nothing to do with this discussion, neither is required since every fact can be verified simply by looking at the sources.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They can be sourced for their existence in the game, but not the analysis of them as references. As I said above, you can cite "X is in the story" to the story, but not "X is a reference to Y", because WoW never states that explicitly, so we make original inferences. For example Themes in Ran may be obvious to anyone who watches the movie, but we can't just find them ourselves, we need to cite the analysis of others. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If Warcraft contains "Who is John Galt" and Atlas Shrugged contains "Who is John Galt", no analysis is required to see that they are the same. This isn't a list of themes, it's a list of things that are the same.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you challenging the informations presented in the article? Because you believe that they are false, or because you want to see the article deleted? The former is a valid reason, the latter could be interpreted as making a point. If someone points to an entry in the article and honestly says "I don't think this is what they meant", then yes, it needs a source or should be removed. But challenging the whole article on principle isn't going to (or shouldn't) work. --Conti|&#9993; 20:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I don't believe it can be supported by sources. Verifiability, not truth. They may all be true, but it's not verifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Verifiability, not truth" is important, yes. We have to draw a line somewhere, tho, otherwise we'd have to put shiny tags after every single word in every article. We don't do that, of course, we only do it with things that are not obvious to everyone or are otherwise contested. Contesting things because there are no tags is silly, in my opinion. I'm not voting because I don't know if this topic is actually notable or not, but I don't really see a problem with WP:NOR here. --Conti|&#9993; 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We should be able to add those tags to counter any challenge made, even if we don't actually cite every word, but I don't think we actually could find a source for the things said in this article, unlike the example of the sky being blue. if you can show me a reliable source that says the spellcasting animation for some class is the same as the hadoken then I'd say it could be verified. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Definetely violates WP:NOR unless you show me a book, a magazine/newspaper article or official site with this list. It's fun to read such stuff, but this isn't a notable subject to merit it's own article. Another thing is the absence of using "summary form" as intended when writing articles, therefore the article also violates WP:NOT because "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." - Tutmosis  19:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we need the entire list for some reason, or will individual entries qualify? And I disagree with your claims of non-notability.  WoW is notable.  Popular Culture is notable.  Popular Culture in WOW is also notable, since you can read articles that cover it.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm a little confused, what you mean by "individual entries"? ALso I'm less concerned with notability than it violating WP:NOT per above. - Tutmosis  20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also I understand how you people feel. The page isn't hurting anyone and provides random intresting information. But rules are rules, and we can not make exceptions therefore we must uphold wikipedia policies despite our personal wants. - Tutmosis  20:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Grr... sorry last comment. When we refer to "Popular Culture" for an article, we refer to how the subject impacted it. Not, all popular culture references that are made by the subject. That's considered "indiscriminate collection of information". If WoW had a huge impact on culture, and you could not contain it on the WoW page, then yes a subpage should be made. - Tutmosis  20:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By individual entries, I mean each individual entry in this list. For example, above, I found an article that described the Cannonball Run and Big Trouble in Little China refererence.  I also don't agree with you that we list only a subject's impact on popular culture with references to it(which is in the World of Warcraft article right now), but also in the cases of certain content, describe the references in it.  See many episodes of TV shows for numerous examples (from Robot Chicken to Pokemon and Sailor Moon). I suppose you could divide WOW into individual quests and areas, with sections for this sort of thing there, but I believe that would actually be detrimental to Wikipedia, since it would make it more of a game guide.  So, in preference to keeping information, having one article on the MMORPG's pop culture references is my choice.  You may also wish to look at the In Popular Culture category.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything "indiscriminate" about this article. It is a logically collection of information about the popular cultural references found in Warcraft games. --Pinkkeith 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The very poster child of original research.  You should not have to pay Blizzard to play an online game to verify an article any more than you should have to build a nuclear reactor in your backyard to verify Nuclear fission. &mdash;Cryptic 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't original research. I'm beating a dead horse. I do agree that you don't have to play the game to verify it any more then I have to read books to verify other information. The references used (if they need to be used) should reflect the ones found at Final Fantasy X. It is a good example of how to site information taken from a video game. --Pinkkeith 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Final Fantasy X article is stylistic genocide... I suppose it's slightly better than blanket referencing the game script, but not by much. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "You should not have to pay Blizzard..." Why not?  I have to pay the New York Times to verify an article there.  I may have to buy a book on Nuclear fission to verify content referenced in it.  WP:NOR makes no distinctions about how easy it is to get access to a source, or if it costs money.  A source is a source.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete While I do believe this does violate WP:NOR, I understand that many disagree. However, there are several other problems here.  Not only is this a rather arbitrary piece of listcruft as well as fancruft, it's an article consisting entirely of trivia.  Wikipedia policy is pretty clear that, while trivia isn't outright banned, trivia is highly undesirable and should only be kept in new articles as a way of suggesting things to be converted into prose with the eventual goal of removing trivia from the article.  That makes it pretty clear that trivia with it's own article is far worse and totally unnecessary.  Are we going to have an article for 'pop culture in...' for every piece of fiction, every game, every movie?  I'd certainly hope not.  --The Way 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per The Way. First, "Karate Kid — One of the bosses in Naxxramas instructs his students to 'Sweep the leg,' a line from the movie."  Is that really a reference to Karate Kid - and not any of dozens of other martial arts movies?  Fans could debate that ad infinitum - and any obscure trivia that fans could debate ad infinitum is probably not encyclopedic.  I'm sure there are some references in here that couldn't be debated - where the reference is crystal clear.  But even there I don't think it would be an appropriate article for an encyclopedia, any more than a FAQ/Walkthrough would be.  It's practically a list of everything funny that happens in the game, decoded for the culturally illiterate.  I'd say delete. --TheOtherBob 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can any of this be verified without direct observation of the game? Combination 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say "No, because if you don't play the game, you're just taking someone else's word for it, and that is not verification at all" but that said, such word does exist. For example:   though I know this is only the tip of the iceberg, and not the whole thing.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's alright to rely on the game to describe what the content of the game is, per WP:OR and WP:RS; the game is self-verifying as to its own content. Postdlf 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete (or transwiki to a WoW wiki since many editors want to keep it) per nom. This is original research. To those who say otherwise, an observation doesn't make it original research, but labeling an observation a pop culture reference with no citation does. For example, lets take the entry on Fable:


 * "Fable—In the Undercity, there is a NPC named Theresa that wandersaroundaimlessly. She is blindfolded and is a mind slave to one of theUndeadcharacters in the game. This is most likely a reference to ablindcharacter of the same name in Fable (itself a reference toclassical mythology)"
 * How do we know this is a reference to Fable?WoW has a lot of elements of classical mythology. It's just as likely areference to classical mythology as it is pop culture. Likewise, how dowe know "Hanzo Sword" is a reference to Kill Bill? It could be areference to a weapon wielded by the samurai, the Hanzō in Kage no Gundan(the show that Kill Bill makes a reference to), or a number of other Hanzōs in fiction. If we had references we could verify this, but we don't. The article is interesting(and most likely true in a lot of cases), but it is not for the Wikipedia. Mitaphane talk 02:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That the list contains some dubious entries is not questioned by anyone, and you hardly make your point that the list is entirely OR by zeroing in on some of the least substantial or incorrect references for criticism. Postdlf 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making the point that the list is entirely OR. In fact I also said, this "article is interesting(and most likely true in a lot of cases)". Rather I was using examples from article to point out how the topic is tied to original research. Instead of keeping up this argument, why not address some these issues in the article by cleaning it up? You hardly make your point this topic is not OR by letting bogus references stand and not finding references for legit claims. —Mitaphane talk 03:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. It's Original research (referenced or not), many connections are only according to contributors, it does not demonstrate its notability (as Tutmosis said, "When we refer to "Popular Culture" for an article, we refer to how the subject impacted it"), and, therefore, it's an indiscriminate collection. Whew. Delete this before someone adds about a blood elf's "hey, get back here!" line coming from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. GarrettTalk 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Per nom and Garrett. Is this article interesting? Maybe. Is it encyclopedic? I don't think so. Save it for the fansites. The Kinslayer 10:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - editors interpreting primary sources are engaging in original research, this sort of stuff needs a secondary source (i.e. a comment from the creators of WoW). Stick to reporting primary sources, don't interpret them. A high degree of cruftitude and WP:NOT-ness in its indiscriminate list variety is not a plus point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain per above. Havok (T/C/e/c) 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on which specifics your agreeing with? Or are you just parotting what appears to be the popular vote? The Kinslayer 12:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call this breaking WP:NOR as the games are the source. The entries that as "sketchy" can easily be removed. No need for a delete. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing all the OR and sketchy info would leave this article with about 4 sentences. This article is irretrievably flawed all the way through. The Kinslayer 13:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see it braking OR when the game are the source as stated above. But, I've changed my vote to abstain as I created this article, and I don't think I should vote on it. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking through the article, I could easily provide alternative suggestions for most of the references and in-jokes listed. Without an official confirmation that something is a reference to this that or the other, what we have is people providing their interpretation (i.e. Original Research) of what they are seeing. And a lot of the so-called 'references' are tenuous at best, down right awful logic at worst! The Kinslayer 13:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then talk about it on the talk page, I thought that was the reason we had them? To discuss additions/changes etc. to the article. But I guess putting something up for AfD is much easier then actually trying to help the article and fixing it. Regardless of how you or others feel about it, not everything in the article has an "alternative" explanation and not everything breaks WP:NOR. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However, that's just your opinion (and one you make in practically every AfD you respond to). I think the article should be deleted and said so here. Why should I be expected to contribute and help clean up an article I don't even think should be here. I think it DOES break WP:NOR, and I'm not the only one. Looking at names, most people who want to keep the article are those who contributed to it. The Kinslayer 13:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to sound uncivil; But what you are telling me is that people who contribute vote keep? You could have knocked me over with a feather. Havok (T/C/e/c)
 * Ah, sarcasm. Awesome. What I'm suggesting is that the contributors are being selectively blind to the flaws of this article. I'm suggesting that had you come across this AfD and hadn't contributed to the article, you would probably have voted to delete it. (NOTE: I don't mean you as in Havok, but rather a collective you, and I'm sure this is where people who have said 'keep' will jump in with 'As a matter of fact I'd have said 'keep' regardless of whether or not I contributed.') Can I knock you over with that feather now? The Kinslayer 15:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This is just a list of amusing observations (WP:TRIVIA), not knowledge.  Zun aid  © Please rate me at Editor Review!  15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, trivia is knowledge, it is just considered unimportant. Please read the link that you posted, the editor makes the same claim. --Pinkkeith 15:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * EVERYONE uses that excuse to try and convince people to keep a certain article. By your definition, if trivia is knowledge, yet considered unimportant for Wikipedia, then this whole article is unimportant to Wikipedia. The Kinslayer 15:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Something being important or unimportant is an opinon. To me there are many articles that are just trivial information to me, but it might be considered so to someone else. Just because someone believes or disbelieves that an article is trivial doesn't mean that it should or shouldn't be deleted. --Pinkkeith 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I thought that was the whole point of an AfD, so people could try and find a consensus between those think the article is trivial and deleteable and those who think it should be kept. But by your own arguement, like I said, this article is unimportant due to it being trivia. (As a matter of fact, I can't find anyone claiming this anything more important than trivia. No one is denying that fact, they are just trying to say it should be kept despite it being trivia.) The Kinslayer 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this AfD is about references, not about the trivial or non-trivial of the information contained therein. Yes, I do think it is trivial, but that is not a reason to delete an article. --Pinkkeith 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not the only thing we're discussing, but it is on the list of things. That an article is about a subject that some would consider trivial, but which is nonetheless notable under the WP standards, is not a reason to delete.  However, when an article exists only to provide trivial pieces of information about a subject (notable or not), that is a reason to delete.  Think of it this way - there's an article on Monty Python's Holy Grail.  There's a lot of trivia that you could list about that movie - if you wanted to include a list of jokes, funny bits that get repeated, etc., you easily could.  But you may as well just include the script instead - if the trivia is so trivial and so inclusive that it more or less just restates the movie, then it's just an indiscriminate collection of information.  I think this article is pretty much along those lines - so the fact that it's stuffed full of trivia is a reason to delete. --TheOtherBob 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See, that's where I disagree. A list of every character in WOW would be entirely trivial.   A list of every item as well.  A list of those who by virtue of their name choice or other characteristic have a unique character that causes people to recognize them as references to another thing is not trivial, even if it was trivia.   Perhaps it's just a result of pepole using the same word, but with different meanings.  That said, the Monty Python and the Holy Grail article currently has a section equivalent to this article.  It's got about 50 entiries in it.  There's also at least a few daughter articles based on characters in the movie.   FrozenPurpleCube 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the Holy Grail article's section (while itself completely out of control) is the exact opposite of this - it's a "cultural references to this movie" rather than "cultural references in this movie" section. The former establishes the place of the movie or game in the culture; the latter establishes that the movie or game is...full of references.  I see this list as equivalent to the first two things you cite here - except that this is a list of every joke / reference in the game.  I don't really think I understand why that wouldn't be trivial, any more than a list of items or characters would be. --TheOtherBob 21:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The point I was making is that they are equivalent, I recognize that they are sort of mirrors to each other, but the information is of the same nature. Especially since you can also find the same information in the articles about the various TV/games/whatever that mention MPaTHG.  (Not always mind you, but I doubt that's a conscious decision as opposed to a quirk of editing).   And no, it's not every joke/reference in the game.  Just the ones that are pop culture.  Think of it like a phone book (Yes, I know Wikipedia is not a phone book).  You can have it listed by name.  Or by address.  Or by Telephone number.  This article is effectively then, a reverse look-up directory.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok - in fairness I still don't see your point, given that the former provides cultural context for the subject, whereas the latter merely describes the content of it. But I don't think it's important, because I don't think the Monty Python section could stand on its own in any event.  Let's assume that you're right, and that this is equivalent to the type of thing in the Monty Python article.  Would you include a stand-alone article that was just "List of References in Pop Culture to Monty Python"?  As a part of the Python article, they add a little value - but they're not a full article.  Similarly, I can see a few of these cited in the WOW article to show that the game is "reference-laden," but don't see it as a full article. --TheOtherBob 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (Reducing indentation for convenience) Yes, I could see such a list being made an article, if it was desirable to reduce the size of the Monty Pyton main-article. Given that it is a movie though, there's only a limited amount that can be said about it though.  But that's beside the point, the real idea is that the content itself is not inherently objectionable.  Since it's not, it's worth looking at the subject matter, which is the very content-rich World of Warcraft game.  WoW isn't a single movie of fixed length, or even a series (and I note, there is a lot of Monty Python content on Wikipedia), but rather a large created environment with a fair amount of content.  That means deciding what articles and information aobut it Wikipedia should include are different from any movie.  More extensive is likely to be one of them though. FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My entire point about saying that it should be deleted on grounds of it being "trivial" is unjust. The notion of something being trivial (something that is interesting, but unimportant) is largely opinon. I think that all of the articles in Wikipedia is interesting, but in the larger scheme of things, it is not very important. In fact, encyclopedias are in my opinon simply books that contain tid bits of trivial knowledege the important and non-trivial information is usually contained in the references that they cite. No one at the college level would (or should) every use an encyclopedia as a reference for a paper because of this. The same is true with Wikipedia. --Pinkkeith 18:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: On the one hand, it might be possible to write a list called List of possible pop culture references in Warcraft with entries like "After defeating a group of spiders in the wastelands, characters can obtain a sword called Stung "(citation)  In The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins obtains a similar sword, named Sting, which he uses in a battle against spiders.(citation).  On the other hand, (1) this article doesn't even approach that sort of neutral, non-OR presentation, and (2) it would be pretty crufty even if it were written correctly, possibly enough to implicate WP:NOT.  On balance, though, I think that most of the information could be included in a non-OR fashion and properly cited, and it seems to have interested readers, so weak keep.  TheronJ 21:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is valid, and a large number of items on the list are valid. I'd want to see a better source for some of these, such as the dance moves, or else see those entries deleted, but many of them require no external verification as they are obvious. Deco 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete; I don't know if this is mentioned or not, but if we state something like "An NPC on the shores of Lake Lorderon is named Nancy Vishas; Nancy Spungen is a deceased girlfriend of former Sex Pistols bassist Sid Vicious", does it count as OR? If it does, then delet. If not, major overhaul?--   &#162;&#178;   Connor K.    23:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and clean up, This doesn't smell like original research, it's to big to be in the main article. Some referances might be streching it, that can be resolved with a clean-up.Armanalp 18:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CCM the article to World of Warcraft.-- TBC Φ  talk?  03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though it might seem like a good idea, I don't think it should be merged, even if cut down and cleaned up. World of Warcraft is big enough as it is, which is the reason many articles that could have been a part of the WoW article have been split up into separate articles. Havok (T/C/e/c) 06:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: This article fails No original research and Verifiability. --Tristam 01:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see nothing warranting the article's deletion. AfD is not cleanup. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per CyberSkull. People need to stop deleting information instead of cleaning it up. Additionally, [thottbot] is a good start for sourcing. -Ryanbomber 13:55, 14 November 2006 (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.