Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World of Warcraft terminology (second nomination)


 * 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. Sandstein 06:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

World of Warcraft terminology (second nomination)

 * (second nomination) — (View AfD)

To clarify, I am not relisting World of Warcraft terminology because of a question of usefulness or value in the information (ie "fancruft"). Rather, I am relisting it because, even months after the original nomination and having been tagged and discussed on the talk page, the article still contains no verifiable references. The article was originally kept under the assumption that the information within is verifiable. However, those references have not been provided. Even the original author of the article has conceded on the talk page that he is constantly deleting unverified and often probably inaccurate terminology, and was himself considering deletion. I recommend that either the article receive at least SOME citations for verifiable terms, or if nothing is verified during this afd discussion then the article be deleted and only reconstructed when proper citations can be provided. Dugwiki 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'd suggest refraining from bringing up issues of being "unencyclopedic" or "fancruft", etc. Those issues were discussed in depth in the original afd discussion and were apprently rejected.  Thus I'd suggest remaining focussed here solely on the question of verifiability and references, to avoid confusing the issue. Thanks. Dugwiki 19:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and because Wikipedia is not a game guide ➥the Epopt 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Having content related to games does not make it a game guide. If it explained how to do something, it would be a game guide. Explaining terms is not a game guide. -Ryanbomber 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Besides, many of these are not exclusive to WoW in any way. - Che Nuevara  19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is essentially a specialized dictionary -- Whpq 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - some of those terms aren't unique to wow and can be merged back into the mmo terms article, but i haven't had the opportunity to sit down and really look. also, the content could be transwiki'ed is it? to wowwiki. also, as a matter of practically, where do you suppose these citations should come from? i guess that opens up a larger can of worms as to where any citation comes from... oh well. i never liked this article anyway. --Htmlism 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One possible source for references would be if Blizzard has an official guide to game terminology on their website or in their manual, or if a published hint guide has a glossary of those terms. Just a suggestion of where to look, maybe. Dugwiki 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If lack of citations is truly what's at heart here, then this article can't exist. So many of these acronyms are just things that players know and use from general chat. It's impossible to cite short of me or someone copying all the content, making a blog post somewhere and saying "these are the termx0rs we use to communicate in World of Warcraft". You'll never find this stuff in a book. --Htmlism 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm tired of being the only one who enforces the warning at the top of the page. --The Nayl 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not really all that notable, sort of crufty (although that's not the nominated reason) would be a reason for weak delete, but if nobody's citing it, it'd be best to just get rid of it. -Ryanbomber 13:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, in 25 years nobody will be playing WoW and nobody interested in this list Alf photoman 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alf photoman. Also, it's cruft.  NeoJustin 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that nobody will be playing in 25 years (even if that's true, which I'm tending to doubt considering the massive appeal of the game, UO's survived about 10 years now after all...) doesn't make it less relevent. Pop culture is pop culture. If you want to disagree with an article's content, go for it, but don't do it for stupid reasons like this. -Ryanbomber 12:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ryan above. The "cruft" issue has already been debated in detail in the previous afd discussion, so this nomination works under the assumption that the article does have useful information for readers. The problem is that none of the information is referenced or verified, and has been so for a long time, which means that as a policy matter it should be deleted if that can't be rectified (articles need to use only information verified by external published sources). Dugwiki 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - this cruft. --61.114.193.19 12:53, 10 December 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.