Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of references in Overwatch


 * 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 01:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

List of references in Overwatch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TRIVIA - Wikipedia is not TV Tropes, and any references need to be well sourced by third-parties, otherwise this is all Original Research M ASEM (t) 03:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand why third-party sources are necessary. All that they do is repeat the facts listed in the Wikipedia article. A true source would be Blizzard themselves describing these references.


 * By the way, List of Pixar film references does not have a citation for every item on the list, so should that article not be deleted as well? ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 03:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The very basis of Wikipedia is writing articles according to what third party, reliable sources can verify. It's a core piece of how we write prose, and how we determine notability. Your question is like asking "Why do tricycles have to have 3 wheels?" - Because that's what they fundamentally are by definition. Same here. Also, your Pixar article Isn't particularly a good example either - it's tagged for clean up itself.  Sergecross73   msg me  12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft/trivia, impossible to secondarily source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe such an article is possible if appropriate sources were available, but the existing article is uncited fancruft. Example: The "Jail" spray, available for all heroes, has the caption "Go directly to jail", which is a reference to the "GO TO JAIL" card in the original 1933 board game Monopoly. I mean, how stupid can you get??? WP:TNT at the very least.  E  Eng  04:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Actual sources would be screenshots or videos, but that’d be copyright infringement, wouldn’t it? I don’t get why some obscure “news” website has to repeat what the Wikipedia article says for it to be considered valid.


 * I wouldn’t bothered if I hadn’t have spent hours on writing the article, linking to pages, and researching. I don’t get this OR policy.


 * Again, why can List of Pixar film references provide facts without references? ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 05:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because X said Y, and in a separate work Z said Y, does not mean X is referencing Z. It might be, it might not be. That's why we need third-party sources to make that judgement for us. I do know that we can source that Mcree was modeled after The Man with No Name from Blizzard themselves, but that's about all we can source to that extent. And again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. I do think that the Pixar film article is weak, but also to its fairness there is a LOT of coverage of Pixar's self-references in third-party sources to make such an article work. It definitely does not exist for Overwatch. --M ASEM  (t) 05:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Blizzard will never verify any of this, but that doesn’t mean that the information is false. A link to PC Gamer saying that the claims are true doesn’t make much of a difference, does it? ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 05:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With PC Gamer being a reliable source, yes it does as it takes out any original research associated with making that connection. --M ASEM (t) 05:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How does it do that? Please explain. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 06:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – Original research, fails to meet notability criteria for stand-alone lists, a clear example of fancruft, gamecruft, listcruft, and trivia. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - one giant collection of WP:GAMECRUFT. This is the type of stuff we strip out of articles, let alone have dedicated articles for. We're an encyclopedia, not TV Tropes. Sergecross73   msg me  12:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced trivia. The topic does not meet GNG. The content is unsourced and undue and doesn't fit the main article to be a SPLIT. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTTRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. Only source is youtube which gives it away the whole article is original research. Ajf773 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is a YouTube video not a reliable source? ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 22:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's a video from a reliable source, like IGN or Eurogamer, it'd be okay. If it's just a random person who uploaded it, then it's going to fail WP:RS, WP:USERG, WP:SPS, etc. The bigger issue is probably that you're trying to source like a 50 point bulleted list with a single short YouTube video. That leaves about 98% of the article unsourced even if it was reliable. Also, no offense... but you seem have an awful lot of questions on the very basics of Wikipedia policy. It may be easier if you try to read up on these things yourself, rather than continuing to defiantly ask over and over again at this AFD. Sergecross73   msg me  22:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What difference does who uploaded it make?


 * Anyway, I will read Wikipedia’s policies the day I want to spend a couple years reading several billion pages on the Internet. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 22:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you were making any effort to understand what people are telling you, you wouldn't have follow up questions like that. If you're not going to make an effort, your articles are just going to keep getting deleted. It's up to you. But this approach sure isn't working well so far... Sergecross73   msg me  23:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am making an effort by asking these questions. Answer them, then. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 23:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia sources need to be written by reliable sources. Since you refuse to read up on what that means - it's stuff provided by people like professional journalists. Not just any ol' random person on the internet, which is a large percentage of YouTube videos. Sergecross73   msg me  23:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I do understand the “no original research” policy.

I have added multiple sources and will add more if I come across any. I’m not sure whether these sources are considered reliable, however. All they do is recite the facts provided in the Wikipedia article, which is what is expected, is it not? ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk |  contribs  ) 23:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither SegmentNext or Twininfinite are considered reliable sources. They don't have an established history to judge their reliability. --M ASEM (t) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then what makes a website a reliable source? All they do is recite facts, so I don’t see how one website reciting facts is more reliable than another website reciting the same facts. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:RS -"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". For SegmentNext and Twininfinite, we don't have enough to give any idea about their reputation (and from what I've seen, they don't have much of one). We keep a list of video game-specific sources at WP:VG/S for what we've checked already. --M ASEM (t) 01:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What would make Twinfinite and SegmentNext reliable, exactly? They are just reciting the facts in the article. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 01:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. As it currently stands, we have an unwieldy list of entries amounting to "this line is similar to that line", some of which are probably deliberate, some of which are less so, and some of which would seem to be a bit fanciful (a former manager of mine used to say "Once more into the breach" towards the end of long days, and I know for a fact she wasn't quoting Shakespeare). These claims are supported by sources of dubious reliability (per WP:RS, this is an important consideration regardless of one's personal feelings, and more so in the days of "alternative facts") and it seems as though the company responsible for the game itself won't confirm any of this anyway, reading through the discussion here, which rather damages the chances of reliable sourcing ever happening. There are other venues on the internet for such discussions of "references to stuff" to be made. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of these aren’t just “similar lines.” When McCree, a cowboy-style character, quotes Western movies, you know that it’s deliberate. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 01:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you "know it's deliberate", though? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it’s safe to assume that a Western hero quoting Western films verbatim is not a coincidence. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 01:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Two problems right there. First is that if we were to delete every single other reference in this list beyond the character referring to Western movies, the list becomes two entries long (there's a third entry for this character, but that relates to a nu-metal song, so that's a different case), which is then somewhat debatable as to whether it needs to stay as a separate article. Secondly, "it's safe to assume" in a situation like this is completely against the idea of Original Research and Reliable Sources. Unless and until a reliable source says that something is the case, rather than it being "safe to assume" that it's the case, it can't be written into an article here. The recent brouhaha about the Duke of Edinburgh's retirement is a good example here - there were statements floating around saying it was "safe to assume" nobody had died, but until something official had said what was going on, nothing had been confirmed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Responses like this make it clear that you absolutely do not understand the original research concept. Sergecross73   msg me  01:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do, indeed. Am I not allowed to ask questions? I’ve already provided sources, but they’re, apparently, not reliable, for whatever reason. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have understood the concept original research, you wouldn't have written an article consisting almost entirely if it. (Honestly, it'd probably be more of an issue if you understood it, and then created an article like this. That would be knowingly breaking policy over and over and over again.) Sergecross73   msg me  04:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. OR that belongs in Overwatch wikia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does it belong on the Overwatch Wikia wiki? ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 04:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because we have a rule (WP:NOTTRIVIA) and some others (WP:GNG) and they don't. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is becoming a WP:SNOW situation. Trivial and not notable. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete: this collection of WP:FANCRUFT. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What does “snow delete” mean? ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 22:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW. Sergecross73   msg me  00:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another useful link for User:PapiDimmi: WP:BLUDGEON. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m not contradicting every comment. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 02:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Only 75% of them, true. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you people deliberately finding reasons to make me look bad? Why is responding to the comments about the article that I created a bad thing? ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 14:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you are doing a fine job of making yourself look bad without any help from anyone here. Are you deliberately trying to get yourself reported at WP:ANI and then blocked from editing Wikipedia? Because that is exactly what will happen if you keep bludgeoning this discussion. Please stop your disruptive behavior now. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You said yourself that you haven't bothered to read the "5 million" policy & guideline pages, and your replies show the lack of understanding of policy & guideline, so it appears as if you are trying to force your stance while refusing to understand WP principles. There are a lot of policy and guideline pages, but we don't expect editors to know them all but they do need to be aware of the principle ones (namely, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP) and the shape of others (eg knowing where to look to find guidance) as part of the competence of being an editor. You're not showing that in your replies here. --M ASEM (t) 15:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was pretty much what I was going to say. Its good to ask questions, but PapiDimmi, you keep asking the same ones over and over again, and you do it so defiantly, as if you have any grounds to challenge it on, all the while actively stating that you refuse to read up on policy. You only have yourself for the negativity you receive in response to such an approach. An aggressive approach without the policy knowledge to back it up will not work well on Wikipedia. You've got to chose one or the other - learn policy, or stop being so argumentative. Sergecross73   msg me  15:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And moreover, at least in the first instance, your questions have been met with answers explaining the issues the article has and addressing the concerns you've raised. It can be galling to learn that something you've spent a while on isn't the kind of thing you were "meant" to have spent that time on, and speaking for myself I know I've been there years ago and not enjoyed the feeling either. Ultimately, you have to choose either to learn and move on, or move on without learning. There are outcomes at the end of both choices. "But whyyyyyyyyy??????" really does nobody any favours as a response to the answers you've received. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

All right, I partly agree with you. I do have an understanding of most of the policies mentioned, yet I ignored them, because I really want the page which I spent hours on creating to stay.

I understand that if it violates Wikipedia’s policies, it should, of course, be deleted. It initially broke the “no original research” policy, and seemingly others as well, but I did add several sources. I was told, however, that these sources are unverified, and I don’t understand why, which is why I was asking questions. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk |  contribs  ) 03:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To respond to the points you're making here (I'll italicise your comments and respond to each in turn): I do have an understanding of most of the policies mentioned, yet I ignored them. There's a problem right there. As Sergecross has pointed out, knowingly ignoring/flouting policy is worse than simply doing what you think should be done because you don't know there's a policy saying otherwise. This appears to be a recurring theme here, and it points to behaving in something other than good faith. If you think the rules are silly, you're welcome to argue against them (in another forum, certainly not here) and see if others agree (in this instance, I'd rate that very unlikely), but unless and until they are otherwise, they apply to this article as much as today's featured content. I really want the page which I spent hours on creating to stay. Understandable, but remember that you don't own the article you've written. I've suggested that it could be written somewhere else, and Piotrus has actually given a name of a somewhere else it could be written - as well as why, but you knew that already. Given that you know at least now what the rules are, and may well have known at the time that you spent hours creating the article, you can at least see why it doesn't meet the standards which will allow it to stay, can't you?  I was told, however, that these sources are unverified, and I don’t understand why. And you've been told precisely why. For want of a better term, there's a heirarchy of sources, particularly in a day and age where practically anyone can create a webpage or YouTube video saying that XYZ is true. Per the applicable policy, to which you've been referred plenty of times, the sources you've provided aren't at the level they need to be in order to be reliable. In the event that there are better-quality sources, the article could be kept or re-created, but at present it looks by your own admission that there aren't, which again means the article needs to be deleted. Again, I get that this can feel like a slap in the face, and I can see that you've had similar difficulties in other places here on Wikipedia, which isn't a fun experience for anyone to have. Behaving in a manner like this when things go wrong, though, really isn't a way to deal with it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as fancruft/trivia that does not appear to have received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. I am in agreement with the above delete votes/comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Article easily falls under WP:GAMETRIVIA. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's starting to snow here. It's gamecruft/fancruft. Very poorly sourced, also, which doesn't help its case.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:32, 13 May 2017 (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.