Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locations in the Warcraft universe


 * 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 keep. There seems to be consensus that it needs cleanup, but I don't see one for deletion. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Locations in the Warcraft universe

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am all for thoroughness, but this article is ridiculous. The stuff on here is what WoWWiki is for. Even if it isn't deleted, it needs to be toned way-way-way down – the page is 213 kilobytes long! Not only that, but some of the locations in this gargantuan unencyclopedic article each have their own articles (see Azeroth, Draenor, Darnassus, Ironforge, Stormwind, Orgrimmar, Thunder Bluff, Undercity). It also overlaps with the much smaller Warcraft universe article, which is supposed to be the "main" article, judging by the infobox. Sdornan 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Notice I'd just like folks to note that the nominator has changed this article considerably since it was first nominated(see comment below) and it might be worth looking at the article as it is now rather than considering it as it was. In particular, it's no longer 213 kb long. FrozenPurpleCube 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. How is it possible to have a 213k encyclopedia article that has no sources? 213k of WP:OR World-of-Warcruft? The prose is unsuitable for a merge as it stands, being written 'in universe'; per nom, this belongs on WoWWiki, not WP. EyeSereneTALK 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the vast improvement that this article is now showing, and the addition of a decent source, I think I'm justified in changing to weak keep; "weak" because I still have some concerns about the game-guide aspects of the article and more sourcing would be nice, but these are really cleanup rather than deletion issues. Excellent job Sdornan and FrozenPurpleCube! EyeSereneTALK 12:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a second look at it, but don't credit me for anything, I'll give the kudos for all the hard work to Sdornan. FrozenPurpleCube 13:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what happens when you merge every little thing; the parent gets too large and is deleted. You all brought this on yourselves. &mdash;Xezbeth 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I really don't see how this is any different from most articles regarding fictitious characters that rely entirely upon the primary source material.  They are notable as key elements of an unquestionably notable series of games.  I will agree that this article really, really needs some sourcing and massive rewrite per WP:WAF but that's not quite a reason to delete.  I hate to invoke something like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but let's be honest, there are many, many other articles similar to (or worse off than) this one that get kept along the lines of reasoning that "X is a notable part of Y, Y is unquestionably notable, article on Y is too big for X so a seperate article makes sense".   ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is that nearly all of the article is written from an in-universe perspective. In-universe material is not encyclopedic. I disagree with the notion that there should be large separate articles for in-universe material. There are probably encyclopedic things that could be said about the subject matter, but this article contains nothing of that sort. I would argue that everything in-universe should be removed, but what would we be left with?  Leebo  T / C  19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * perspective is a concern to rewrite, not a concern that mandates deletion. What exists in the page afterwards could be examined at the time.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be a rewrite from scratch though. Until someone does that, the value of the article is near nothing in encyclopedic terms. I'm just providing my opinion, I'm not currently saying "delete" or "keep."  Leebo  T / C  19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That might be how you would rewrite it, but I wouldn't rewrite it that way. I would make use of the existing material as appropriate, and in some cases, yes, I do believe that would be quite valid.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The existing material is not encyclopedic though. It should be removed and replaced with encyclopedic material in any case. There isn't much of a difference between deleting the article and replacing it with a proper article (if no one is willing to rewrite it soon).  Leebo  T / C  19:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it? What would make it encyclopedic?  I can understand concerns about tone, I would certainly not say the page overall is well-written, but I am unable to comprehend the reasons for your statement that the page contains nothing encyclopedic.  Frankly, I don't even have a clue what you mean by saying something isn't encyclopedic.  Could you give examples of what is and what isn't so I understand where you're coming from?  I'd understand maybe if this article were written in a perspective like that of a character in the universe, but that isn't the case.    FrozenPurpleCube 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, just to be clear, I do feel an extensive rewrite is appropriate, BUT I feel a rewrite from the existing material is the way to do things. This may just be a choice of editing styles.  In this case, I would prefer to work with what's there, if you prefer another way of working, that's your choice.  I am reluctant to do anything with this discussion going on, however.  I don't want to waste work.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that in-universe material is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you are going to write about the locations in the Warcraft universe in an encyclopedic manner, you would talk about how they were designed, what influenced their design, how they influenced other games, etc. We don't need to know what lands are adjacent to other ones or who lived where or other matters concerning the plot of the series. Also, this isn't List of locations in the Warcraft universe, even though it seems to be written that way. Do you better understand what I mean? An article concerning this subject should be about the real world significance of these locations, not the game-world significance.  Leebo  T / C  20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, I believe I strongly disagree. You may not consider it important to know where Ironforge is in relation to Stormwind.  I do, at least to some extent.  (I'll pass on including information about the gnomes hanging out in the Tram). This isn't to say the other stuff you mention isn't of some value (though I think being overly concerned about that value may be a bad idea in some cases), but I highly disagree that there is no value to in-world material for an encyclopedia.  Heck, I might well say that the stuff you're talking about is useless without knowing what it is that is in reference to.  And of course, if you do believe that sort of thing should be excluded, you're going to have to work for the deletion of many many articles besides this one.  Besides, my idea of an in-universe style is to write as if from the perspective of someone in the universe, as if it were real.  Like as done in some books.  However, it is clearly possible to write non-fiction works describing a fictional universe, as the many works which do so can obviously proof.  Some of them are even titled Encyclopedias.  (though there are some that do so in an in-universe way, that is not always the case).  But hey, so what?  It's a cleanup issue at best, appropriate for handling elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I consider your statement that this page isn't List of locations in the Warcraft universe to be an easily addressed concern. If you want to suggest renaming the page, go ahead, I don't consider the change to be all that meaningful, but if you feel strongly about it, I don't see a reason to protest. FrozenPurpleCube 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't my opinion alone. If you see the manual of style for writing about fiction, the focus of fictional topics is supposed to be the impact on the real world. There is no justifiable reason to have 200kb of in-universe material on a single subject with no out-of-universe material. I'm not reinventing the wheel. Yes, I realize that I may have to say this many times, about many articles dealing with fiction. I already have said it many times, about many articles. That doesn't bother me. I can handle one at a time. A good example of an article appropriately covering a fictional world is World of Final Fantasy VIII. It does describe the world, but not in excruciating detail, as this article does. It covers real-world impact too. It's concise and offers appropriate weight to both.  Leebo  T / C  23:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you're claiming as being part of the MOSF. In fact, the incorporation section specifically addresses the inclusion of material that is directly from the source.  It seems to me that your interpretation is incorrect, because it's opposed to inclusion of the material at all, while the suggestion on the page is balanced, which your position is not.  I think the problem is your mixing the prohibition against writing from an in-universe perspective and conflating it with the idea of the information itself.  Sorry, but that's not what it's about.  In any case, if you merely wished out of universe perspective, it would certainly be possible to do so, though it would be important to find a balance that didn't become a game guide.  And as far as it goes, looking at World of Final Fantasy VIII, I read it, and I find myself feeling I know nothing about that world at all.  If anything, I find it superficial and near useless as to the actual world.  I suppose the reaction coverage is ok, but I'll never really be all that interested in it.  Plus all the citations make for a distracting read.   Of course, if you're concerned about a mere 200 kb of information, you'll probably want to look at some of the Middle-Earth articles.  There's a surprisingly large number of them.  Quite a few things on Category:Middle-earth locations.  (Note, by the way, I'm not mentioning these as reasons to keep this article, just noting that if you are indeed interested in this subject, it would be an obvious place to start, and I do feel there is some work to be done there.) FrozenPurpleCube 00:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel like you're deflecting my comments. You don't find the FFVIII world interesting... and that's completely irrelevant. I don't find Warcraft interesting, but that's not my argument. The citations make for a distracting read... what? I can't imagine that you're arguing against the use of proper citations. This is a core Wikipedia concept. If I'm misunderstanding this somehow, please correct me. Lastly... it means nothing that you are uninterested in reaction material. That is your personal preference. Splendid. Does it mean the article should not properly cover out-of-universe material? No. Does it mean that an article which is in-universe is okay because it's more intersting? No. I apologize if my tone sounds frustrated.  Leebo  T / C  00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, and I feel like you're misunderstanding me. I didn't say anything about what I felt about the world of FFVIII.  I can't say that, because I don't feel I even know much about it.  My comment was to the article, (if I didn't make that clear, my apologies) which contained a lot of information I considered uninteresting, and even beyond that, provided an inadequate coverage of the supposed subject of the article.  IOW, reading the page, I'm left feeling ignorant of the world, not informed.  And it's not a core Wikipedia concept to create pages that are hard to read.  That's distinct from whether sources should be cited or not. If you can find a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says every statement should be cited, I'll say that is a bad idea.  Though WP:CITE says "Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations." and in case you didn't know, the criteria for WP:FA suggests going to When to cite for advice on appropriate use of citations.  If you look on the talk page for that essay, you'll see a fair bit of discussion on the subject. Including cases where people objected to FA status because of too many citations cluttering the page.  So I think it's quite valid to be concerned about excessive citations making an article unreadable.  Not that this is related to this discussion, but it did come up.  I'm not standing alone here, it is something that influences others as well.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, back to the subject at hand there is a difference between writing from an "in-universe perspective" and writing about things in a universe. Really, do you think it's inappropriate to mention the geographical relationship of two cities in a setting??  That just doesn't make sense to me.  I am not opposed to out-of-universe material being included.  I am, however, opposed to what I see as an excess focus on that material to the point where you don't even end up knowing about the world itself.  In any case, the issue itself is a clean-up matter, not a deletion one.   FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the feeling that we have very different opinions on what makes for an appropriate article about fiction. That's a good thing, for the community to have different opinions. Since I haven't said "keep" or "delete", and this discussion has gone well past its necessary scope, I'm content to agree to disagree with you. What you seem to be referring to as superficial, I see as appropriate in depth. Earlier, you said "it would be important to find a balance that didn't become a game guide." in reference to finding an appropriate balance. The current article is like a game guide, in my opinion. A geographical summary. Out-of-universe material is what needs to be added to create the balance.  Leebo  T / C  01:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (Reducing Indent for clarity) Well, to me, a game guide in this case would be to include information like detailed information on (a) rare mobs in areas. (b) resources found in areas.  (c) quests in areas.  (d)  information about flight points in areas (All of which you can find at Wowwiki, but hopefully not here, since I think I removed all of it, though it's possible I missed some).  The current article does nothing of the sort, and while I can understand your statement about there not being real world content in the article, such as might be found at the FFVIII one,  I am completely and utterly astounded that you believe this article has game guide material.  While there was something about the levels of mobs in the version as initially nominated, it's been removed, so that's not a real issue.  Honestly, you continue to astound me with your interpretations of the content of this article.  What of the content do you believe is a game guide?  Give me some specific lines at least.  I'd like to know some examples.  That might help me to understand your position.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean, I can accept the idea that you want more real-world content. Fine, that can be worked on.  But do you feel that the inclusion of the current material is inappropriate?  If so, how?  Where is the game guide nature here?  I'm just not sure how you go from in-universe to game-guide anyway.  The two would seem almost mutually opposed to me.  There is a wide gulf between say, mentioning that Ironforge is north of Stormwind, or Darnassus on a different continent from the two of them, and say, describing how to get between them in the most efficient way.   FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't seem mutually exclusive to me. I expect a game guide to give every bit of detail on the geography and any important details about where to find places and such. That makes sense to me, but perhaps that's astonishing. I also feel that it's not necessary material for an encyclopedia article. We should probably continue this discussion on the article's talk page.  Leebo  T / C  03:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, let's go there. I've copied the relevant discussion bits FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as most, if not all of the valid concerns would be addressable on clean-up, rather than through deletion. And Wowwiki actually provides a lot of things that shouldn't be on this article, as its focus is different. And if you want sources, you could just ask for them. would be the obvious choice. Now is there an actual policy based reason for deletion,or are you just using your personal opinion of the subject to guide your nomination? If so, then I suggest you reconsider as there are strong reasons not to delete things simply because you think they are ridiculous. Patent nonsense is one thing, this isn't that. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And for those looking for third-party sources, many examples like exist. If you want something else, please do tell, but give some some examples through existing pages if you can. FrozenPurpleCube 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's the article editors' job to provide sources (preferably as it is being written), not the job of an AfD. An article can only stand or fall on its own merits at the time of nomination. No-one would realistically argue that sources don't exist, but the point is: there are none in the article. Add them in by all means, and I agree that failing WP:WAF is not a reason for deletion per se, but we have to get away from the idea that it's ok to defend unsourced articles because someone, someday, might find some. EyeSereneTALK 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, we don't provide sources in an AFD to address concerns expressed in said AFD about sources? I'm afraid I don't agree with that.  It doesn't make sense to me, since it would imply that an article which is claimed not to have sources couldn't be refuted with an AFD.  Nor do I agree with the implied idea that a person nominating a page for deletion has no responsibility to look for sources.  I actually consider it essential that anyone nominating any page for deletion make at least a minimal effort to look for sources.  To fail to do so and just throw it at the AFD chopping block may represent a person not acting in the best interest of Wikipedia.  It's one thing to not find any, or to be doubtful about any you find establishing notability(I have experienced both myself), but it is highly important to at least try.  Of course, it's probably worth noting that the initial nomination didn't even complain about a lack of references.  Probably because in this case, it's pretty obvious that sources are not a worry of serious consequence.  But still, I find myself in disagreement with what seems to be your position, as I am concerned that it may be inappropriately directed.  Yes, it is a problem that many articles on Wikipedia are unsourced, or even just poorly sourced.  But there are many options besides deletion, and I feel any deletion nomination should be an informed one, which at least entails looking for sources if that's your concern.  If you can find some, you can add them, if you accept that they can be found, then you can add  to the page.  That may not produce immediate results (and in this case, I think it'd be missing the real needs of this page), and you may need to work at it to get it results, but that's better than making an ill-chosen AFD.  Like say, the recent one for Wikimedia Commons.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I may have expressed myself badly above ;) Sources can of course be added into an article by anyone including those debating it on AfD - there have been recent examples (such as the AfD for Blackle.com here) where the discussion turned up WP:RS sources that meant the article survived. It's just that, in a case like this one, I don't think it's realistic for such a long article that loads of people have edited and not one has sourced, to expect AfD to provide the missing link. Maybe an tag might have been better, along with other cleanup tags, but the article is here and has to be evaluated as it stands. My reading of deletion policy is that sourcing is the real issue - everything else would be down to a thorough copyedit (although Leebo raises a good point that if all the WP:WAF stuf was removed there would be precious little left). EyeSereneTALK 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I don't think it's a good idea for an editor to protest that there are no sources without even looking for them. I've already provided one source.   There are obviously others.  We are talking about something millions of people play after all. Thus it's not a real problem here.  Really, I see plenty of articles that are inadequately sourced, many of them that have apparently seen more work than this one has.  Yeah, it's a problem.  Fine, take it to the talk page, take it to the appropriate Wikiproject.  But I just don't agree that a lack of sources is a deletion reason when even a trivial search can turn them up.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although sources are important, I listed this here because I believe it to be much more than a source problem. The article is written entirely in game terms, it offers no information to readers who do not play the game themselves. Being a previous WoW player, I can tell you that not only is this article broken down into different zones (Just a list of zones and descriptions I would have no problem with, and there are 50+ zones in the game in all.), but also into individual segments of zones, which are completely unnecessary. Using WoWWiki's list of locations as a guide, you can see that the Wikipedia article on Warcraft locations is far more needlessly broken down that even that. For example, Blade's Edge Mountains, according to WoWWiki has 61 sub-regions. Now, the Wikipedia article already needlessly has a section for 10 of these sections. Imagine now, if you continued this treatment for every single sub-region for every single zone. These "sub-regions" aren't even major parts of the game, they are tiny sections of a zone of a world inside a video game for a computer. It takes maybe 10 seconds to walk from one sub-region of a zone to another. At the very least, I believe that this article should be completely edited to only include the 50+ game zones as sections. Sdornan 22:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said in my initial comment, what you've said is a valid cleanup concern, not a deletion concern. In fact, I've already begun some of that cleanup by removing what I consider to be extraneous material.  The same with game terms (which was not anything more than a minor concern for this article as I see it, even before I began cleaning it up).  If things like "zone" or "level" or "quest-hub" are in the article, the solution is to remove that text, not delete the whole article.  Really, if you'd have brought up your concerns on the talk page or with the Wikiproject, I suspect many people would have agreed with you.  I don't disagree with you, though I wouldn't specifically limit it to the named regions.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, what about Warcraft universe, Kalimdor, Eastern Kingdoms and Draenor in relation to this one? Surely we don't need four articles all with the same content. Sdornan 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also cleanup issues, not deletion issues. Perhaps you noticed the attempt to discuss splitting this page to cover those that was occurring on this article's talk page?  Personally, I'd have Warcraft Universe as a bare summary of the setting with a focus on the games and other material that form this universe, with this page as a broad picture descriptions, and the other pages as offering more details.  But I'm not committed to that position, and if you wish to suggest something else go ahead.  But it's a cleanup concern, not a deletion one.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. FrozenPurpleCube 22:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - WoW is typically considered one of the most notable modern video games, so though this article is loosely related it gets heaps of spillover notability. Besides, better here than there. (Yes, I mean it. Thank god that essay is not a policy.) — xDanielx Talk 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note, but I'm not sure if it would change how you feel, but this article is about the entire Warcraft series, not just WoW, the most popular game in the Warcraft universe. It obviously still has the notability, I don't think anyone is arguing that it doesn't, but it's scope is out of control right now.  Leebo  T / C  00:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Acually, the problme with scope had nothing to do with the inclusion of prior games, but rather what I would say is an excessive focus on the details on one of the games. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is essentially a sprawling list of indiscriminate information.  No amount of clean-up can fix this underlying issue.  --Phirazo 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How so? It's not a FAQ, Plot Summary, Lyrics, Statistics, or News Report.  What do you believe is the actual problem with this article?  Do you feel all listings of fictional locations should be deleted, or are there exceptions?  I really find this kind of response to be less than helpful myself, since it's really not explaining your position.  It just asserts that there's a problem without justification.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This article doesn't have to be a "FAQ, Plot Summary, Lyrics, Statistics, or News Report" to be indiscriminate, though I'd argue this runs pretty close to a plot summary, and is almost certainly game guide material. To answer your questions; "What do you believe is the actual problem with this article?"  This is an indiscriminate list of places in a video game without any real-world context. "Do you feel all listings of fictional locations should be deleted, or are there exceptions?"  Yes.  Yes I do.  There should only be an exception if there is real-world notability. --Phirazo 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you don't elucidate on what you consider to be indiscriminate, and it doesn't easily fit any of the existing criteria, then it's hard to know where you're coming from. Sorry, but I do find it pretty much useless when someone just says "It's indiscriminate info" and much prefer the explanation.  Like you've done.  Expressing the position that fictional locations shouldn't have articles unless there is real-world notability is at least clear and comprehensible, even if I disagree.  Which I do, to the extent that I prefer the common sense approach that settings in many fictional works are clearly worth covering in an encyclopedia, as evidenced by the production of works that describe those locations.  Nor do I think you're correct in describing this as game guide material.  I can't see how this would be helpful to playing the game as it is was primarily constituted.  (see other comments for examples of things I think would make this a game guide).  And I also find it ironic that many of the real-world connections in this case would be things that you'd probably call game guides.  But thanks for at least taking the time to make your position clear, I do appreciate that.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "And I also find it ironic that many of the real-world connections in this case would be things that you'd probably call game guides." Interviews and reviews would not contain any game guide material. Those are appropriate sources for real-world significance, not strategy guides and such.  Leebo  T / C  00:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok here's one . Say I use the material there, would you call it a game guide?  I think many people would.  I certainly consider it more of a game guide than what I'd suggest writing.  Same with this: .  Me, I'd rather be reading about the lore of Zul'Aman than that it's an instance dungeon designed for repeat raiding.  And I do expect it'd be called a game guide. Or is  what you're looking for?  I can see how you might want it somewhere, but I consider it to be so very different from the meat of the article that it's not really what I'd be looking for.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete unless real world sources (and I would prefer something other than a game guide) are found to establish notability for these. Corpx 04:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you accept that the World of Warcraft MMORPG is notable? And the preceeding computer games? If so, then I would like to know what reason you have to objection to covering the world it is set in.  To exclude such material would render the articles covering the game incomplete.  Sorry, but I think this is a clear case of inherited notability.  But hey, if you want try  and .   You might I suppose want .  If you want something else, then I'd like a clearer articulation of what you're seeking in the way of notability.  Perhaps an example? FrozenPurpleCube 05:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WOW is notable and I have plenty of friends who play it, but covering the locations in it is akin to describing the maps in Battlefield 2 or Counter-Strike or the different terrains available for play in Age of Empires .  There are all just locations in a fictional world and gets down to game guide level content.   If strategy guides are used to assert notability, then everything mentioned in them would be deemed notable, meaning every character in WOW should have a page that shows their skills/pvp stuff/HP and everything else. Corpx 05:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning fails to convince me. For the first, you're comparing apples to well, not even another fruit, but something even further different.   AFAIK, neither the maps or terrains of any of those games have anything in the way of individual character.  I would not say any of them have an established world at all.  Thus, AFAIK, they don't have a fictional universe or anything which would merit any kind of description outside the game.  (Well, Age of Empires does, but since that's a historical game, we can unquestionably refer to the existing historical civilizations without problem).  To put it another way, this is no different than say, having an article describing the locations in Tolkien's Middle Earth, or the planets of Star Trek or Star Wars.  I can accept reasonable concerns with regards to the content, but I don't see that support for wholesale deletion would occur.  Game guide concerns are needless.  Sure, it would be possible to write something like "The best place for alliance bank characters is Ironforge" but it's also quite possible to write about Ironforge and other locations within the setting without mentioning the game at all.  You do know there have been novels set in the WOW universe, right?  For the second part of your argument, you're making an equally bad claim.  There is no reason to assume that Wikipedia would mindlessly have to accept any and all content merely because it's present in a book.  We are not bound to the rules, but rather to the spirit of the rules.  Covering characters in WOW is reasonable, they're really no different than characters in any book or television series.  I see no reason to list their game stats, but am instead capable of using the judgment that such is not deemed appropriate.  Sorry, but I really think your new objections are preposterously inapplicable. FrozenPurpleCube 06:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All the Red vs Blue stuff were made in Halo, but I dont think that justifies descriptions of maps in Halo.  I personally do not see a distinction between locations in an MMORPG vs locations in a FPS or any other genre.   Maps in counterstrike are extremely important (even more so than wow) because of all the E-Sports competitions played on it (usually played on a standard 8-10 maps).  Descriptions of places in books or TV shows should also require coverage from significant sources (for me, guides can be used to source articles, but not to establish notability).   I also do not think MMORPG characters should have pages unless their notability is confirmed by reliable sources.   Corpx 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the value of List of maps used in Red vs. Blue, but it does exist. But as I see it, I have to ask are you aware of Halo universe?  Maps in Halo is one thing.  The universe in which the games in the Halo series take place is another.  Do you see the difference?  Setting and map are not the same thing.  In any case, if there is a competitive event that uses the maps, then I suppose it would be appropriate to cover them in the same way we cover stadiums and racetracks.  But I'm not exactly a follower of competitive gaming, so somebody else will have to do it.  In any case, I disagree with your contention that seperate and distinct notability is needed to establish coverage of places in books or TV, and I don't feel there is a consensus for that position either. If you do wish to establish that consensus, I'd suggest working on it in the VP or somewhere.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - God I don't want to be grilled for just giving a bloody opinion, but here goes. It is a bloody computer game; this is unnecessary detail that goes from information only the most over-the-top fan could appreciate to unsourced infromation. Get a blog, write a handbook; regardless, it is not sufficient or notable for an encyclopedia article. And yes, I would delete all other articles like this in the game world and no, I will not engage in endless comments here. Let's just vote and move on. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry you don't recognize the value in discussing things with other people, but AFD is not a vote. It's a discussion, and treating it like a vote where you don't interact with other people is counterproductive.  You've basically just slapped me in the face, do you think I'm going to be intimidated by that?   Because it's sure not persuasive.  In any case, I don't know that I agree with your statement that this page is only going to appeal to the most over-the-top fan, in fact, I'd say that the superficial level of detail wouldn't appeal to them.  Besides, Warcraft isn't just a computer game.  It's a game popular with millions of people, that has lead to books, P&P RPGs, shortly a comic book, that has a richly detailed background setting, the coverage of which is as valid as covering anything else fictonal of the same level of notability.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I did some major restructuring and trimming. What do you think? Sdornan 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. WP:PAPER, AfD is not cleanup etcetera. &mdash;Xezbeth 11:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, good job. I admire the effort you put into it, though I do know the work is nowhere near done.  Still, I do like how you're going about things.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per FrozenPurpleCube, per significant coverage in reliable sources such as the BBC, and the WP:CONSENSUS of over two hundred editors contributing to this page over the last two years. DHowell 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per FrozenPurpleCube, and per DHowell. Mathmo Talk 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Its present state seems reasonable enough, given the apparent importance of the gameDGG (talk) 21:21, 10 August 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.