Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Player versus player in World of Warcraft/Archive 1


 * 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 Close and relist individual if need be.. There are a number of suggestions, by a number of editors indicating bad form. So, since the articles are different in some respects the consensus so far here, and the best practice may be to nominate individually. M er cury   18:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Player versus player in World of Warcraft
Nominating the following:

In short: Non-notable gamecruft. In long:


 * 1) WP:N - Here we have the main reason why these articles should be deleted (hence why I'm listing them all together); the subjects are simply not notable. These articles lack independent reliable sources, the vast majority of their references being from Blizzard, the creator of World of Warcraft. Multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish notability. As the template at the top of List of Warcraft locations confirms, these articles need "additional references or sources for verification".
 * 2) Player versus player in World of Warcraft, Reputation in World of Warcraft, List of Warcraft races, Classes in World of Warcraft, Azeroth (world), Alliance (Warcraft), Horde (Warcraft), Human (Warcraft), Night Elf, Dwarves (Warcraft), Gnome (Warcraft), Draenei, Orc (Warcraft), Tauren, Undead (Warcraft), The Scourge (Warcraft), The Forsaken (Warcraft), Troll (Warcraft), Blood Elf, List of major cities in World of Warcraft, Instance (World of Warcraft), Corrupted Blood, Dark Portal, Eastern Kingdoms, and List of Warcraft characters are gameguides despite protestations, which is something that Wikipedia is not. These are of use only to people who play the game, and those people are not who an encyclopedia article is written for. See WP:CVG/GL.
 * 3) Also, a possible reason someone would say to "keep" would be that the main article is too big (WP:SIZE). The answer to this is simply that the main article needs cleaning up. ANY article can become too big if it goes into unnecessary levels of detail. This means that it needs to have extraneous information removed, NOT used as an excuse to make more articles. Again, EVERY article on Wikipedia needs to prove that it is notable in its own right - notability is not inherited. That World of Warcraft is notable, and therefore can have as many sub-articles as its editors want, is simply not true and therefore not an argument. World of Warcraft itself is notable, and that is why is has its own article: World of Warcraft. Its individual elements however are NOT notable (as demonstrated by the complete lack of sources), so there is no justification for them having articles of their own. IllusiveOne 00:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC) — IllusiveOne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not all of those are that bad though. I'd argue for keeping Corrupted Blood at least - that appears to have third-party references, and was discussed outside of the WoW community. enochlau (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment While the second one is not listed om the talk page it should also be noted that Corrupted Blood already survived 2 AFD nominations and quite handely in both cases. --67.68.152.38 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Stuff like RuneScape gods and RuneScape combat were delete, so this falls under the same rules. Besides, if people REALLY want to know about WOW that bad, they can go to the WOWwiki. Tesfan 02:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A brief response: And people who REALLY want to know about philosophy can go to the Stanford online Encyclopedia of Philosophy, people who really want to know about penguins can go find data on penguins on animal sites all across the web, and in fact people who really want to know about politics or geography can go to Microsoft Encarta or the online Encyclopedia Britannica. Can't they? --Kizor 02:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all BUT the Warcraft characters list. It's a pretty famous series with a famous plot, so I don't think it's out of the question. Keep all, until a PROPER deletion nomination is held that doesn't involve nominating a bunch of article without checking to see if they're notable or well referenced (kind of like suing stores for lacking handicapped parking and not checking if any of them did). - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad form. This nomination is flawed in that many of the articles listed are summaries of numerous sub-articles. For exmaple, Azeroth (world) should not be deleted until articles such as Azeroth (kingdom) are either merged into it or deleted first. In any case, there are too many articles of different content up for deletion here. This nomination should be scrapped and a discussion brought up on its various Wikiprojects on specifically which articles are worthy of inclusion and which need to be done away with. Or alternatively, each article should be AFDed seperately. This is just too much to handle all at once.--SeizureDog 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or Delete for all race and faction articles, and the PvP article. Preferably Transwiki the articles since they would be fine on a Warcraft-dedicated wiki. They need to contain information on real-world context if I'm going to vote otherwise. Ong elvin 05:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad form per above. Such wholesale nomination of articles with varying degrees of suitability for wikipedia is bogus.  Corrupted Blood for example, I'd suggest keeping, it's got out of Universe references+notability, while some race articles can go.  Expect a wikipedia admin to trawl through dozens of nomination responses seeing what people like / don't like from this big list of WoW articles??  Unreasonable.  Cancel nomination and start over, nominating similar articles together. --Oscarthecat 06:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support above As a major contributor to at least three of these, I'm obviously not in favor of deleting these. Sure, many are problematic, and breeding grounds for fancruft. But to wave a dismissive gesture over every single article and say none of these are salvageable is improper. I don't know how many people who read this single AfD will examine each individual article, and any judgment made will be based on incomplete analysis. I would rather you list each individually, and let the community decide on individual articles standing.Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep some, delete othersThe "Player vs. Player" is game guide clear as day, others like Forsaken and Horde are not. BassxForte 06:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all as game/fancruft. /Blaxthos 15:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Corrupted Blood in particular has citations from the BBC. Bad idea to nominate them all at the same time. Have the people voting delete looked at all the articles nominated here? Timb0h 15:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad form, request nominator withdraws. Proper discussion in this format is impossible.
 * Assuming an average article size of 20kb, the nominator is asking editors to read 520kb of prose. For comparison, the plaintext version of The Prince on Project Gutenberg is 298kb. Editors cannot be reasonably be requested to read this in order to come up with an opinion on the issue, but coming up with a proper judgement on deleting an article (a quite severe thing to do to) requires at least reading it. This biases the discussion towards those with predefined opinions related to the subject, as editors without prior knowledge or opinions are effectively excluded from the debate.
 * The format of the discussion prevents some good guidelines from being applied, because they do not apply to all articles up for deletion. For example, testing many of the articles against WP:FICT would be helpful, but that would not apply to some of the others.
 * User:Krator (t c) 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

'Comments' I would like to take the time to point out to everyone that getting rid of them will not be a loss in any way, shape, or form, because the warcraft wiki is already SEVERAL times more comprehensive then wikipedia's pages, check it out. http://www.wowwiki.com/Main_Page BassxForte 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad form, Some of these are far more noteable than others. Its not appropriate to lump all these together under one decision.  Keep some, delete others.  Corrupted Blood is one that I'll weigh in as definitely *Keep*.  Its noteable and has implications in the study of disease and how real populations react and is referenced by the BBC. Dman727 23:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad form: Too many different articles have been listed. Some relate each other, some do not, some have different reasons for deletion, and so on. --Scottie_theNerd  08:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad form, discard AFD Many clearly notable, many clearly not, can't be decided as a whole. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep without prejudice, close AFD as per many above, particularly Krator. These articles are not identical and lumping 26 of them together in one AFD gives the community no chance to look at them in-depth and discuss the options. Little good is going to come from this group nomination. 86.138.198.93 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad form. This has been tried before.  See Warcraft character articles.  Nothing came out of that. hbdragon88 20:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's pretty clear what the consensus is, but it should be noted - if it hasn't been already - that a very similar nomination occurred in 2006 with identical results. Also, as the person who created the PvP article as a way of merging/removing some content while allowing coverage for other content, I just wanted to say that I gave up on trying to "draw the line" on Wikipedia and moved away from most anything regarding this type of material. Some cases (see Talk:Mounts (World of Warcraft)) are clear cut and just need a little pushing, but for the most part, the summary of the previous AfD pretty much sums it up. To vote one way or another, ironically I'd say delete most (not Corrupted Blood obviously), but for an example - I know this is bad form for AfD, but I'm saying "it is what it is" not "X exists so Y can too" - see James Bond characters.   Luatha 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad Form because you grouped a characters list, allowed under WP:FICT, with gamecruft. Renominate seperately. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Close without prejudice against smaller renominations per David Fuchs, hbdragon88, and Krator. Unless we're dealing with cookie-cutter one-paragraph stubs (which we aren't), nominations this large aren't productive. — TKD::Talk 16:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Close without prejudice against more practical nominations as above. Considering the recent Runescape AfD, this is a probable case of WP:POINT by a single-purpose account anyway. Mi re  ma  re  17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's interesting how you bring up the Runescape AfD, because you might want to look at the nominator's talk page. I doubt there's any connection, but interesting none the less. . Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what do you mean? The only thing on the nom's talk page is a note that I left..? As for a connection, if there isn't one, it's very odd that after such a contentious AfD as the Runescape one, a complete cut-and-paste of the deletion rationale nominating 26 similar WoW articles springs up. Courtesy of an account which has made no other edits before or since, btw. Mi re  ma  re  18:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. I'm sorry if I was unclear, that wasn't meant to be accusative of you. I just found it odd that an SPA took a copy-paste of a big AfD and applied to elsewhere. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.