Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattered Hand


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Shattered Hand
This was originally listed by Sycocowz on 01 Nov, but the nomination was formatted incorrectly (there was no heading or any reference in the page as to which article it was that was being nominated). I'm correcting the formatting now, and relisting this under 07 Nov. Just completing the nomination, no vote. - ulayiti (talk)  00:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete 95% Original Research, not encyclopedic by any standard of Wikipedia Sycocowz 17:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything after the first two paragraphs is not documented in any published forum and is likely from all Primary Sources >> No_original_research As far as I can see no other WoW server has its own Wikipedia article nor do I believe it deserves one in the spirit of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (debate this if you feel it does deserve one) Sycocowz 01:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you prove this? Well sycocows i might add you read carefully what standed wikipedia is before you lodge such a delete. Please also give evidence to prove your statement. --Franco rosi 23:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Documented online... A great deal of this information is documented on Blizzard Entertainments own forums and verified by Blizzard Employees, and they do seem to constitute an authority over virtual events that occur on their servers. It would seem that - like a sporting event or scrabble tournament, that the facts reported herein are mostly verifiable.  There is a need to clean up some issues, like the statement at the end that one person is a racist.  Other than that it seems that the entry shouldn't be marked for deletion.  I see no reason for deletion. --BusterGT 14:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Blizzard has a policy wherby they refuse to acknowledge kills etc. I agree that 'blue' posts verifying any of the presented information would be acceptable, but I have never seen any post from Blizzard ever verifying anything other than the server exists and the etymology of its name. They did sticky a list of guild websites, this does 'confirm' their existence but has no official information about them. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/board.aspx?fn=wow-realm-shatteredhand Sycocowz 20:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This should definitely NOT be deleted. It's almost completely accurate, and is a very entertaining read.  It's also nearly completely unopinionated.  If you need verification that this is real, ask anyone at http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/board.aspx?ForumName=wow-realm-shatteredhand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.173.215 (talk • contribs)
 * Don't get me wrong, I've played on shattered hand since release day. I have no doubt in my mind that most of those things are true. They are completely unverifiable for the purposes of wikipedia however. Internet forums are most certainly not a credible source of anything (blue posts excepted) Sycocowz 12:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as not encyclopedic. - brenneman (t) (c)  01:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. 68.255.173.215 calls it "almost completely accurate." I'd like to delete the inaccurate parts. Unfortunately, without source citations I have no way of telling which parts these are. Therefore, I vote to delete the entire article. BusterGT says this is "documented online" but does not provide the documentation. Citing sources does not mean asserting that sources exist and that a reader could find them if they looked: it means providing those sources in a way that any reader can check. "Ask anyone" is not citing a source. If the article is edited to include good, verifiable source citations for the important content, I will withdraw my deletion vote. A "good source" would of course be one with a real-world name and identity, not just an online screen name. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic and unverifiable. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Unsure -- I'm not yet qualified to vote in this case, but... somebody put a lot of work into it. I've seen worse writing.  And whatever World Of Warcraft is, it sure sounds exciting.  Before deleting, I might ask myself: is it certain that no one will ever find this info useful?
 * Delete as unverifiable and unencyclopedic. WP:NOT a history of every gaming server ever booted up. In 100 years, nobody will care that "On a daily basis, Jubei, the infamous leader of Skyfang, and his guild would invade the Horde city of Thunderbluff to kill the NPC boss Cairne Bloodhoof in order to gain honor, mostly uncontested." Hell, nobody will care in a year. FCYTravis 07:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hell, I'm struggling to care now and the vote hasn't even finished yet! ;-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete As per FCYTravis... Marcus22 10:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia even if it was verifiable. Belongs deleted like fancruft and forumcruft. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Haeleth... no reason for a whole article of fancruft history of one WoW server, even if it is 100% WP:V. Didn't sign my vote --Isotope23 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. burn the fancruft! burn! burn! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We ought to have a guideline that any AFD discussion which attracts at least 3 sockpuppet votes is automatically deleted :) ESkog | Talk 20:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree! Dpbsmith002 20:62, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too! DoPpelgangerBSmith 20:71, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can say that again! Real User 20:86, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We ought to have a guideline that any AFD discussion which attracts at least 3 sockpuppet votes is automatically deleted :) ESkog Talk20:89, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Amen. And a vote for delete while I'm here. Ifnord 22:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Shoo, I was the only one against the sockpuppets for a bit, got a little scared! Sycocowz 23:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * To quote William the Concurrer, "I agree". - Marionnette de Chaussette 11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic fancruft. jni 06:42, 11 November 2005 (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.