Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Murloc


 * 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. W.marsh 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Murloc

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Keep A fine article that is not nonsense. If that's nonsense, then pikachu's nonsense too! (It kinda is) no offense. Ru n e Wi k i     777  17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gamecruft trivial nonsense - The article suffers a complete lack of real world attribution or context, there are no ex-universe references or mention - should be redirected at a very minimum - Tiswas (t) 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - You are correct in that the article is not nonsense - it was disingenuous of me to state as much. It's relatively well written fancruft with a complete lack of real world attribution or context, and no ex-universe references or mention -  Tiswas (t) 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow, I must have missed something because I see plenty of references to the games themselves and to the Blizzard website. Maybe now that I've pared it down a bit, you'll have an easier time finding them? - User:Awakeandalive1
 * Those are all in-universe mentions. Linking to the game manual itself would not add any real world attribution - Tiswas (t) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep major element in a very very very notable game. The fact that it scores 8 current Google news hits (admittedly all minor mentions) suggests that an article should be possible. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The gnews hits are trivial mentions of a related topic. They are not mentions of the subject. "Murloc suit" would not warrant an article on the strength of the news hits, and neither should its derivative (or precursor). - Tiswas (t) 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true, and I did note that. None of them on their own are enough to carry an article, but they do show that the murlocs are an iconic element of the game with some amount of media recognition.  The real sourcing for this should come from the World of Warcraft guides, of which there are quite a few, including a half-dozen or so from BradyGames alone. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the essence of fancruft - There is no dispute as to the accuracy of the article - The dispute is whether there is any notability to of the subject matter - Is there any attribution of this notability outside of the WoW universe - Tiswas (t) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Credo From Start   talk  12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Integral part of the (admittedly fictional) universe. It seems that nearly every Warcraft article written (with the exception of perhaps the "Main Article") is nominated for deletion per cruft at one point or another. The various Races in the Warcraft universe have survived AfDs and this one should be no exception. Credo From Start    talk  12:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Want to read a very interesting AfD directly related to this one? check out Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles. This AfD a)had no consensus and b) doesn't necessarily apply here because of the fact that that it covered multiple articles including but not limited to the Murlocs one. However, it does provide a lot of insight into why the article exists and the response it's likely to generate if it's deleted. Also, were major contributors or the Wikiproject notified of the AfD? (see The AfD Guidelines).
 * Comment - Entirely my mistake. I've been through the non-spa, non-anon editors and notified them. Hopefuly, that will reduce the number of I like it votes and generaly Fanwankery, and allow at least a chance for consensus - Tiswas (t) 14:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Firstly, giving pejorative terms (like "nonsense" and "fancruft") for the reason for deletion is bad form, you might as well say "delete this article because it sucks". Secondly, the assertion that there are absolutely no ex-universe references is false, as it discusses the fangame Murloc RPG which had some popularity.  I wouldn't object to the non-player races of Warcraft being merged into a single article, and this article could be cleaned up, but I think that deletion would be a mistake. - Atamasama 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As such, I have retracted the terms. They are not the reason for the nomination, but a summary of the reasons - that is, non-notability, no real world context, and a lack o attribution and not encyclopaedic - Tiswas (t) 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would say that the article holds up well enough when looking at the Notability (fiction) guideline. It takes an out-of-universe perspective (for the most part, it could be cleaned up a little), it is well-written, it cites its sources, and is notable within the work of fiction it comes from.  I see nothing stating that every minor character article must have multiple sources, in fact the Noonien Soong article being shown as a "high quality" example has only one reference aside from the Star Trek Wiki link.  This article does not deserve deletion, and is long enough to warrant a seperate article from World of Warcraft. - Atamasama 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral I would support either decision; on the one hand, it is mostly well-written and -formatted. Maybe it could use some clean-up & sources, but other than that, it's not too bad.  On the other hand, Murlocs aren't exactly the most important characters in the Warcraft universe...if there's a page that lists (and briefly describes) the various mobs found in the Warcraft games, then maybe the more key parts of this article should be placed there, and this should redirect to that page. -Rhrad 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep 1) Unless you're going to delete all the other Warcraft-universe race pages, then this choice of deletion seems arbitrary. 2) While i see PLENTY of material in there which is NOT written as though it were in the game universe, I do think that this page needs some editing (eg: is there really a need for the extensive catalogue of unique Murlocs?). Instead of just making a broad, evidently-uninformed proclamation and deleting the whole page, why doesn't somebody go in and edit it? It even references the Blizzard website! -Awakeandalive1 14:00, 8 June 2007 (EST)
 * Comment - Other stuff existing is not a valid reason to keep this one article. The reference to the blizzard site doesn't confer any value, except that of accuracy. I agree that a redirect to a meta article would be a good compromise, rather than a delete.- Tiswas (t) 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The "other stuff existing" point is more of a statement. The choice of this article simply seems arbitrary. I hope that you'll direct the same attention to the other related articles if you're going to lobby so hard for this one to be removed. Awakeandalive1, 14:28, 11 June 2007 (EST)
 * I'm not so much lobbying to see it removed, but to see that reasons given in this AfD are robust. The choice is neither arbitrary nor calculated - I can across the article in isolation, and am giving it the dues considereation that any article deserves. - Tiswas (t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Murlocs to Warcraft are like Koopa Troopas to Mario. They are both notable enemies that have appeared in many games in their universe. Since each game in the series is notable, it wouldn't be hard to suggest that a recurring enemy is notable too.--Kylohk 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable race from notable video game Cyclone49 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm confused - what makes them notable?- Tiswas (t) 09:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Something is noteable when lots of people know about it. For instance Lord of the Rings is noteable while something such as Dogs don't tell Jokes isn't. Ru n e Wi k i      777  17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - By that logic, the login sequence for WoW would be considered notable, in that every player knows about it. Possibly more so than Murlocs. - Tiswas (t) 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - Murlocs are notable for a variety of reasons. They are fairly ubiquitous within the game world; I doubt that any player can advance very far without encountering them, they seem to be just about everywhere. They are very distinctive, in that they look, sound, move, and act in a unique way unlike other species of monster. They also have distinctive dwellings where ever they appear, special primitive huts and tents unique to them at their spawn points (you can always tell murlocs are nearby when you see their villages). Even Blizzard has considered them notable, offering a murloc pet as a special reward for Blizzcon attendees one year, and a different pet for European customers who purchased the collector's edition of the Burning Crusade expansion. They have as solid a presence in the game as any of the playable races. -Atamasama 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But are Murloc's notable outside of the game world? Are there multiple, independent, non-trivial mentions of murlocs from third party reliable sources? Are there any press articles, news stories, or published research for example? What makes this article more than gamecruft? - Tiswas (t) 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a requirement for an article's existence. The fact that this is a notable topic in the largest MMORPG in existence is enough. Again, you continue to use pejorative terms, it seems as if your reason for deletion is simply "I don't like it". Notability is a subjective term. -Atamasama 02:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is indeed subjective, but it does have some fairly basic, minimal requirements - that of multiple, independent, non-trivial mentions from independent, third party, reliable sources. A good example would be a news article (even a byline in a niche publication), possibly title "Murlocs, the Scource of Azeroth". Not a fansite, or game community article that mentions Murlocs in passing. I neither like it or dislike it - I'm focusing on the quality of the article, the notability of the subject matter, and established Wikipedia guidelines and policy, and have stated as much as to back of my nomination for deletion (or, rather, merge and redirect). Continuing to focus on the inferential pejorative nature of the cruft suffix is counterproductive. - Tiswas (t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry everybody! I have a back-up just in case it is deleted. Ru n e Wi k i      777
 * You could just refer to the game manual instead. If you have to keep the article for reference, it means that the article contains original research. - Tiswas (t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep regrettably, the Pokemon precedent applies. JJL 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The pokemon precedent is an essay, and not a valid test. Two wrongs do not make a right, and all that. - Tiswas (t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fr0 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Murlocs. Murlocs are probably the most hated mobs in the game. In fact, I'm sure if you interviewed 100 people that played they would probably agree to be murlocs. Blizzard has capitalized on this by actually promoting events giving out Murloc pets, and many of the featured fan art has contained murlocs. Murlocs to me, are the Mickey Mouse of WoW. Murlocs are still widely joked about within the game, and who can forget "Rawgrlgrlgrlgrlgrrgle!!!!" Gah! That sound still haunts me. "But are Murloc's notable outside of the game world"? Yes and no. There are plenty of sites, even an fan made RPG about them. Were they mentioned on the news? No. Should this be considered a stub from the World of Warcraft? Yes. I'd rather this not be deleted myself.Anywho, it's a vote so it's not a matter of whether or not the people nominated it for deletion have never played the game, and wouldn't get it. /shrug
 * My Tauren Shaman main char might disagree with you on that. - Tiswas (t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, considering above comments, it seems to be notable enough for me. The article has good references, so I can't think of any reason to delete it. *Cremepuff  222*  20:55, 12 June 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.