Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense of the Ancients (2nd Nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 Keep - Although most discussion has been based purely on Defense of the Ancients - Hahnchen 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defense of the Ancients

Additionally, I am also nominating these other articles for deletion and bundling it with this one:

This came up in the discussion for the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europa (warcraft). I am being bold at the risk of looking like I am trying to make a point, but all of these articles are plagued with the same problems of not having reliable sources and violating WP:NOT (they seem to be using wiki as free webspace). I suggest deleting all and create a new article named "Warcraft 3 custom maps" or something of that line and give an overview only of these fan maps Hobbeslover talk/contribs 17:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    • I think you should have nominated each of these maps on an individual basis, as many of the more popular maps are swinging voters —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fledgeling (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment Maybe, but I think the concensus is pretty clear anyway; merge all except the one or two most notable maps, which is fairly close to what my nom is (delete all + merge vs delete most + merge) Hobbeslover talk/contribs 21:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep* This map is single handingly keeping WC3 alive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.167.152.13 .
  • Strong Keep I would be willing to say that more people play DotA than the actual WC3 RTS.
  • Weak keep A lot of these looks well done. Context issues are noticable in the discussion, however. Xyrael T 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "Defnse of the Ancients" (in quotes) on google returns 118,000 hits, this is the most used custom map for WC3 (see the last AfD) and I think it still deserves an article Crazynas 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I would also recommend keeping the Defense of the Ancients page alive, at a minimum. I have found this entry to be informative and useful in the past. Jeffhoy 20:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. DotA, EotA and Tolkien-related games all have some importance, as they are litterally being played by thousands of players. Thus, citing sources should not be a problem, as these games have their own specialized community websites. However, it appears that many of the smaller maps could pose a problem, as they contain a lot of unwanted clan talk, and do indeed lack sources. I believe we should rather work on improving these articles according to wikipedia criterias instead of deleting them. --Ludvig 20:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. WP:NOT a video game magazine or a free webspace provider. Put such stuff on a gaming wiki, not into an encyclopedia, please. Sandstein 21:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Defense of the Ancients. The map is extremely popular, with tournaments held by Blizzard Entertainment themselves. The other articles you have nominated, however, should be deleted and briefly outlined in a WarCraft III custom maps article, or not at all. They are simply not popular enough to be notable on their own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimmyBlackwing (talk • contribs).
  • Merge Each of them isn't that notable, nor is it important for non-Warcraft 3 players. Lunar Anime was more notable and it was voted to merge it with Fansub. Make one article for all those maps. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep any that got into Battle.net's hall of fame or otherwise got awards. The only one I've actually heard of is DotA. Kotepho 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (Which is here, so I guess keep Dota Eota, Footman Frenzy Kotepho 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Strong delete or merge Fledgeling 02:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Mergeing them all together is pure insanity; and deleteing these perfectly good articles is not a good idea at all due to the fact that they are well written. Plus, it also serves as a guide.
    • Wikipedia is NOT a game guide, and that they are well-written is inconsequential- the subject itself makes them nn-simply not notable enough to be their own articles. They should be merged as they are a waste of space, since many are not popular. If you play the map you probably know all of this anyway, so whats the point? Fledgeling 12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • cleanup and possibly merging the contents.SYSS Mouse 15:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete it Jamhaw 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the articles. WP:NOT also states that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and this smells of rules lawyering to me. These articles are relevant to the life of WarCraft III, and reflective of some of the strongest elements of the WCIII fan community. If WCIII is worthy of being noted in Wikipedia, then the major contributions of the fanbase to the series (which is arguably a genre unto itself) are also worth noting. Bartender06 18:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This is the user's first edit. In response to his allegations: the rules lawyering on that he is referring to (WP:LAWYER) deals specifically with ArbCom only. In any case, we are gathering concensus here, which makes Bartender06's arguments invalid. Despite his perception procedural error here, this does not mitigate the fact that many of these articles are using Wikipedia space as a free web host. By Bartender's line of argument, then the contributions of the fanbase are a "genre unto itself" which would elevate it to equal status with its originating work, and then that would spawn more articles on increasingly irrelevant subjects. Also, I have not said that this should be removed entirely from wikipedia. It is, of course, important to note the fan community of WC3. I suggest that we do, in fact, do this. However, we do not need this many articles on what I believe is fancruft. Instead, we should merge them all into one page. I do not have first hand experience with the "more notable" maps in question, so I will let the more informed be the judge of that. Meanwhile, I stand by my vote and let community concensus override me. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 03:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment That it is my first edit does not prevent me from being able to contribute. First let me correct two misunderstandings. First, my reference to a "genre unto itself" is to the series Warcraft III, not the fan contribution. Also, the rules lawyer comment was off base. Rather, knowing nothing about the petitioner, I feel that the reason for submission for deletion here is that no value is placed by the poster on the medium, and therefore it seems to him that the articles are "free webspace" rather than useful contributions. Your suggestion to merge is acceptable, if detail is allowed to be retained. Anyway, I still believe, despite my inexperience posting in WP, that this "fancruft" was intended when Blizzard created its game (mod tools included, "fancruft" development conducted by blizzard programmers), and should have a amount of space dedicated to it, large enough to explain but without rambling on. The current amount does not seem excessive to me. --One more thing: it seems odd to state that WP:NOT bureaucracy only applies to conflict resolution. Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't *say* that. Bartender06 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment True. , but that it is your fist edit it reeks of ballot stuffing. True or not that is what it seems. So your vote may or may not be counted. Fledgeling 00:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Bartender06, you misunderstand. I myself am a gamer and I have played WC3 in the past. However, I can say with certainty that I have never heard of these maps in the past, and I am willing to bet that most casual players (let alone the general population) does not know or care about this. Yes, it is important to know this, but much of this information is/could be convered on official websites. Some of these articles are making Wikipedia into an unnecessarily detailed game guide, as vanity, and free webspace. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 16:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. --JJay 03:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Dota has become a way of life for most WC3ers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheWingedTiger (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep these WarCraft 3 maps are the most well known maps from games outside of CounterStrike. Only de_dust is more well known, if even. Stormscape 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into one DotA overview article with lot of links to map's own webpages.
  • Keep I can't comment on any page other than the Tower Defence page, but its been useful to me. Don't care if it's merged tho... penno
  • Keep It is notable because an apparently large number of people play this variant. BeteNoir 16:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep DotA an EotA have been through this process already, I don't see any reason why they should be deleted, if anything the articles have improved and the playerbase has increased. As for the other maps, I support creating a Warcraft III custom maps article--Discombobulator 22:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Tolkien-based Warcraft III games article already lists a brief description of all major custom LOTR maps (a few paragraphs each). Instead of merging it with a huge Warcraft III custom games article, wouldn't it just be suitable to move it to Tolkien-based Warcraft III custom games? The same should be applied to the other maps. I don't think they should ALL be merged into ONE article, but rather, if they are to be merged at all, to have them merged into a few articles with maps of similar concepts: EotA/DotA, LOTR, massing games, etc. --Ludvig 01:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment While this seems like a reasonable idea in general, I don't support merging DotA and EotA, as the maps deserve their own articles with both notability and differences from eachother.--Discombobulator 08:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep DotA This deserves an article as much as any other computer game, being the predominant custom map played on WC3. Merge some of the lesser ones, but keep this and any others of such significance. 210.18.214.122 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 1) DOTA is a very popular game, and as someone else mentioned, DOTA is probably played by more people than the actual Warcraft 3 game itself. 2) When I first heard of DOTA, I only knew about its four letters and therefore typed in 'DOTA' in a search engine to find out what the hype was about. Many sites came up, but if Wikipedia had been one of them, it would have been the first I checked out. So yes, having the keyword DOTA in wikipedia adds to its value.
  • Keep I'm a representative of the most popular Russian site about Dota, and I can prove that Dota Allstars sites attract much more people then Warcraft site. Maybe it's not STRATEGIC decision to keep dota article alive, but you should remember that Wikipedia is CONTEMPORARY information book. As soon as dota becomes unpopular (it can be in 1-2 years, or maybe never), you will be able to delete this article. Skadi (193.238.131.253 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment - I really hope the nominator will take the time to renominate these maps again seperately. Whereas Defense of the Ancients should be kept due to its use in professional competitions in the Cyberathlete Professional League tournaments, many other of the custom maps should not. "Swat: aftermath" warcraft gets around 100 links on Google. I bet that its player numbers are nothing compared to the counter-strike maps we have at Wikipedia at all. Three Corridors is a custom map for a custom game for Warcraft? Like wtf? How is that possibly notable, can someone who plays this log into Battle.net right now and give me a solid number on how many people are playing this right now? Vampirism Revolution? 18 Google links? That's absolutely pathetic. - Hahnchen 00:09, 7 June 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Defense_of_the_Ancients_%282nd_Nomination%29_7acb.html"