Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadmines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 all. Proto::type 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deadmines

Apparently every "instance" in World of Warcraft has its own article. Each one of these is written as gameguide complete with helpful information such as which weapons are "must have" and which is a "popular twink weapon" and which monsters "drop some very sweet loot for your raid" (Onyxia's Lair). These articles have no references and can be deleted as unencyclopedic as well. Wikipedia is not a game-guide. Also nominating:

  • Ragefire Chasm
  • Wailing Caverns
  • Shadowfang Keep
  • The Stockades
  • Blackfathom Depths
  • Gnomeregan
  • Razorfen Kraul
  • The Scarlet Monastery
  • Razorfen Downs
  • Uldaman
  • Maraudon
  • Zul'Farrak
  • The Sunken Temple
  • Blackrock Depths
  • Blackrock Spire
  • Stratholme
  • Dire Maul
  • Scholomance (Warcraft)
  • Onyxia's Lair
  • Ahn'Qiraj
  • Zul'Gurub
  • Molten Core
  • Blackwing Lair
  • Temple of Ahn'Qiraj
  • Naxxramas
  • Warsong Gulch
  • Arathi Basin
  • Alterac Valley
  • Azshara Crater
  • Auchindoun
  • Black Temple
  • Coilfang Reservoir
  • Hellfire Citadel
  • Tempest Keep
  • Caverns of Time

Wickethewok 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete non-notable WoW instances. There may be scope for a merge but I'll leave that to those who could cope with WoW for more than a couple of weeks. MLA 13:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not unknown for all the zones of a world such as LOTR to have articles here, in fact LOTR has pages for each of it's areas most of them shorter then the smallest WoW instance page. PPGMD 15:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave it alone!! It is Helpful information. You wouldnt condone burning books would you? Then why delete these pages?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.7.251.200 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-17 11:24:04 (UTC)
    Comment: 131.7.251.200 (talk · contribs) has voted keep below. The above should be taken as a comment. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: see places of Morrowind for a possible precedent. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • These are instances in WoW - that is analogous to having articles for each level of Super Mario Bros. 3. Having an article on something is not precedent for keeping another - perhaps if it was nominated for an AFD and voted to keep, then maybe. Wickethewok 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    The term 'instance' means nothing to me, sorry. Not a Warcraft player. I see both groups of articles as essentially articles on game locations/maps/whatever. Delete the whole lot, or keep the whole lot. There is no need for haphazard application of standards. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps for a recent related AfD discussion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Please note that the CS maps AfD discussion page specifically warns that that discussion is not to be referred to as precedent in future decisions. -- Super Aardvark 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    I am well aware of that warning, and haven't cited that AfD as precedent. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Instance essentially means "level" or whatever. As for the application of standards, I don't know of any other way to go through this other than on a case-to-case basis. If you have any ideas on a broader application of standards, I'd love hear them. A single AFD for all maps/levels/instances listed on Wikipedia would be a massive and confusing ordeal imo. Drop me a message if you have any ideas on such things unless they're specifically related to this AFD. Wickethewok 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    If I cared enough about it, I would propose purging all game map articles from WP wholesale. But, being not a gamer myself, I can't mount a vigorous defence of that position, so I haven't suggested it. If you do the honours I will chime up in support. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not have an article for each level of SMB3, in principle? In practice, I don't think there's enough to say about each of those to warrant an article, but there's plenty to say about these areas of WoW (lore, individual NPCs, impact on the game as a whole, etc.) -- Super Aardvark 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because there is information on such things does not make them encyclopedic (not an indescriminate collection of information). Wickethewok 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Quick comment here, a better analogy than having articles for each level of SMB3 would be having articles for each boss of SMB3. I know it seems like I'm nitpicking, but I just think it's important to clarify this for the non-WoW players. An instance is more of a special area where the major bosses of WoW are encountered. Sorry to be anal, but, well, I'm anal... --Polkapunk
  • Keep: These are all notable to the substantial number of people who play WoW. Given the notabililty of WoW (the most popular MMOG ever, by a factor of two[1]), and that Wikipedia is not paper, these articles should be kept. -- Super Aardvark 16:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not stating whether these are notable or not. My reasons for deletion are given above, you may address those if you wish. Things can be of interest to a large community but still be unencyclopedic, such as recipes, game guides, and such. Those things are "all notable to the substantial number of people", but are certainly not encyclopedic. The main purposes of these articles seems to be to provide information on "bosses", what items they drop, level recommendations, listing mission objectives, etc, which definitely falls under a game-guide, which WP is specifically not. Several of them even have "Strategy" sections, which is quite blatantly unencyclopedic. Wickethewok 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I should have placed my argument for notability as a response to the first Delete vote; sorry. After reviewing a majority of the articles in greater detail, I agree that their main purpose as they now stand is to be a game guide. However, most have some background story-line information that should be merged with another article or should be expanded to warrant its own article. Game guide material (essentially the Instance section of each article) should be removed. -- Super Aardvark 17:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Per Wickethewok, the issue is not whether fans like it, or that lots of people play the game. WP is not a game guide. Tychocat 16:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the articles are referenced (to a WoW Wiki), and I would not consider areas in the most popular fictional world non-notable, per WP:FICT Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How are they referenced? Wikis can't be used as reliable sources of information, so WoWWiki is not any sort of reference. Wickethewok 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability. --Abu Badali 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See above for my refutation of the "not notable" argument. Do you have a counter argument? Do you agree with the grounds stated by the nominator? -- Super Aardvark 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm confused about the late additions. These are all redirects to the same article. This article contains no strategy or game-guide material. Are you requesting the redirects be deleted, or the article? On what grounds? Your original reasoning doesn't hold for this article. -- Super Aardvark 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Correction: half are such redirects (to Caverns of Time), half should be made redirects to Outland (Warcraft). -- Super Aardvark 17:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The article specifically, though of course the redirects as well. I removed the redundant article listings above. How does my reason for deletion not hold? Material that is unencyclopedic can most certainly be deleted. I have elaborated on these reasons including original research, WP:NOT a gameguide/how-to, and unencyclopedic in general. Wickethewok 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • By "unencyclopedic in general" I imagine you're referring to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't see how Caverns of Time falls under any of the stated categories of articles for which concensus has been established, and I argue that it is encyclopedic. It explains what this new, in-development feature of the game is, how to access it, and the lore behind each aspect. The article will continue to evolve as more information is made available, but it doesn't contain any speculation. -- Super Aardvark 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A large percentage of the information should probably be moved to a Wikibooks gameguide. Other information contributes to game lore, which account for a large percentage of game-related articles. --Smithra 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Your main arguement to delete these articles is, one they are not notable (that has been refuted by Super Aardvark), two they are unencyclopedic (how many other things on wikapedia are unencyclopedic?) and three, that it is more of a game guide, (this has also been refuted by stating that there is lots of pertinent background information on the pages too that coincides with the helpful hints.) Pretty much the only thing the guy who wrote this did wrong was go above and beyond. Now you want to delete ALL these articles because someone (who doesnt play WoW) thinks they are unencyclopedic. Well try looking up "Toilet humour" on wikapedia...Now THATS encyclopedic!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.7.251.200 (talk • contribs)
    • Keep: I agree with the person above here. If i have a question about almost anything I come to wikipedia. Plus, like reading about the lore of the dungeons. Wikipedia has information on almost all topics. Why isn't any true knowledge encyclopedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.231.52 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-17 20:01:20 (UTC-4)
      Comment: User 75.4.231.52 (talk · contribs)'s sole contributions are to this AfD. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Noted. Here's my opinion on that: Assuming good faith re this person's frequent use of Wikipedia, you now have the opinion of a member of your target audience. This should count at least as much as a seasoned Wikipedian who may have no interest in video games. -- Super Aardvark 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Just to let everyone know, instances are not a "level" in the game. They are specific "dungeons-type areas" that are completely unique to your group. For example, when you enter an instance, it is completely empty except for you and your group (and of course the bad guys). This is to prevent people from attempting an instance and having all of the "mobs" cleared already. Instances are a HUGE part of WoW and are not there simply for level advancement, but the instances coincide with the history and the story of the game. For example, a lot of the instances are where you and your group/raid can relive some of the stories and legends that many of the players read about on the pages of Wik. It would just be a shame to see them go. WoWPlayer131.7.251.200 19:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: vote struck out. You cannot vote more than once. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay Mr. Chaudhuri, I want to direct your attention to the part of the page that states very clearly that this is NOT a vote. Let me copy and paste that part for you in case you misunderstood. "please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia" My last comment was furthering the discussion and informing the editors. I put "Keep" down when I wrote my comments to restate my position. And furthermore, I dont appreciate you being a forum "Taskmaster". I can put more than one comment up if I want, because as the editors say, its not a vote.--131.7.251.200 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Please review WP:NPA. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Calm down. Your comment wasn't struck out, just the second vote. From what I understand, while AfD is not decided by vote, it is helpful to the admins to have a general idea of roughly how many users are on each side of an AfD. Feel free to comment, but only vote once for clarity's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.61.46.16 (talk • contribs)
    • IP addresses should not "vote" in AFDsI think it would be best if you acquired an account, as its hard to keep track of who you are, which seems especially important for the purposes of AFD. If you wish to participate, I suggest you get register with a username. Wickethewok 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete All per nom and WP:NOT--Nick Y. 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. I suppose the background/history information could potentially be useful, but the walkthrough sections are absolutely unencylopedic and must go. Perhaps a merge somewhere of the background sections is in order, but I have no clue where that should be to. BryanG(talk) 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwikify to wikibook or another project. An encyclopedia is not a gaming guide. Regardless how "useful" this information may be to players, I feel strongly that this is the wrong project to publish that information. Don't take it personal.--Andrew c 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are so many articles nominated here that I'm not sure which way to vote, because I'd have to lump them all in one decision. A page like Maraudon is primarily game-guide material, while an article like The Scarlet Monastery isn't. Similarly, if you trimmed out most of the Instance info from articles like Blackrock Spire, it would be worth keeping, or at least trimming down and merging into a list article. To delete them all would surely be overzealous, but not to edit these at all would be ill-advised.

    But I suppose that point is moot if you don't believe any of it should be here at all. This AfD's primary reasons for deletion are that it is a gameguide and that they have no references. For the game guide claim, I would argue that these are fictional elements in a notable video game, notable in regards to the game's design as well as to the greater Warcraft universe - not necessarily a gameguide. Inherently, some instancing and gameplay information should be there. For references, the game itself can be cited as a primary source, as well as other how-to guides, FAQs, and reviews as secondary sources, if it goes that far. --SevereTireDamage 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Another Comment: Why aren't Instance walkthroughs encyclopedic information? They are just as helpful as an article about the Revolutionary lore. I thought that the purpose of wikipedia was to document the entire knowledge of the human race. Yet you want to delete all these pages of useful information?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.231.52 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-17 20:01:20 (UTC-4)
  • Delete or transwiki all, game guide cruft. Dungeons in a game are not proper topics for an encyclopedia. Recury 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a game guide. Put it in some kind of WoW wiki. --Pboyd04 00:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or perhaps merge. I think these articles would be okay if all of the game guide information was removed (including all references to levels, questss, etc.) and leaving much shorter articles regarding solely backstory within the Warcraft mythos would be sensible. Game guides are good for those things, but providing the history of the game world and how these locations fit into that seems possibly within Wikipedia's bailiwick. Sertrel 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think these articles belong on the WoW Wiki, not here. --Coagmano 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All WP is not a game guide. If this material is not on the WoW Wiki, why not? It should be there and not here. Shenme 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Transwiki to WoW Wiki. -- H·G (words/works) 07:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • delete because this is not a game guide true, but not because they do not have quoted sources... the majority of it is common knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.185.185 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete all. Gameguide/gamecruft. Transwiki to any WoW site willing to take them, then disinfect with immediate effect. -- GWO
  • Delete all. per everyone above Wikipeda doesn't need gamecruft. Whispering 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The parts that are not gamecruft are strictly in-universe information. Nifboy 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all: Trim out the game guide info and focus on the encyclopedic content. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, per above recommendation: "[Leave] much shorter articles regarding solely backstory within the Warcraft mythos." As a former WoW player, I can say that Blizzard actually did put a fair amount of backstory into most of the instances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewolf34 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep: Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, period. Just because some people may or may not agree with the content doesn't mean that the content should be removed. On the contrary - if anything the content should remain and should be enhanced with links, images (without violating copyright), etc. Seansquared 15:47, 19, July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.162.143 (talk • contribs)
  • Note - the above user changed my comments on this AFD intentionally (I have reverted them). If you do so again, I will not hesitate to recommend you be blocked. Wickethewok 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - my apologies, I was unaware of, and have since become aware of, the policies on the AFD. I will, however, state that it is painfully obvious that the above user is biased towards his own deletion recommendations (due to the way in which he defended this AFD entry) and may also be biased against World of Warcraft for some unknown reason (as he has contributed to at least one other game entry in Wikipedia that could be construed as a "game guide", that game being Halo). Seansquared
  • Note - also, please don't attempt to threaten me or any user with such phrases as "Don't do it again". You do not own Wikipedia, you are merely a contributor like everyone else. Furthermore I have suddenly received a huge influx of spam on my gmail account for no reason; I can only assume that you have contributed to this and as such have reported you to both Wikipedia and Google for possible service violations. Seansquared 16:42, 19 July 2006
  • Note - Adding to my original recommendation of Strong Keep I would like to say that World of Warcraft is very notable (6.5M+ players worldwide), has a rich lore and history, etc. Again I recommend that the above articles be edited, not removed, to better fit with Wikipedia's standards. I would not, however, merge the entries, as that unified page could possibly contain hundreds of pages worth of scrolling. Seansquared 16:47, 19 July 2006
  • I enjoy being accused of being biased towards my own recommendations. I cannot deny that - my opinions are indeed biased by my opinions. I assure you I don't have anything against WoW. Also, I'm glad to see you signed up for an account. I hope this AFD does not deter you from making future contributions to Wikipedia. I apologize if I was a little rough with my "Do not do it again" comment. Wickethewok 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, Wikipedia is a collection of human knowledge, and I fail to see that why you can have an article on specific episodes of Star Trek, World of Warcraft instances need to be removed. This is the reason I come to Wikipedia, it has information on absolutely everything. Simply because you do not find interest in it does not mean it should disappear. Tapo 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I came to this site looking for meaningful information about what Molten Core is, which I found in the article about the instance. I would have been very surprised not to find an article on the subject in an encyclopedia as big as WP, as I have come to rely on it for information on a great many subjects. Some of the instance articles could perhaps use a cleanup to make them more like information and less like a guide, but as they are now I don't see it being a great problem. Merging all the instance articles won't be possible without removing a vast amount of information, or making an enourmous article. I also join the poster further up, in saying that the person suggesting this deletion seems strongly biased against World of Warcraft for some reason, as evidenced by him mockingly mentioning "sweet loot for your raid" (which seems to be a quote from nowhere in the Deadmines article). Sphinxer 22:59, July 19 2006
  • That line is from Onyxia's Lair. Wickethewok 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your primary argument seems to be that these articles deserve to be included in WP merely because WP is "big" and has articles on a "great many subjects". However, WP aims to be a encyclopedia, which is not necessarily the same as being big and having many articles. The argument for inclusion of an article must involve the properties of the article itself, rather than the properties of WP. As far as opinions go, I disagree with the expectation that one should find detailed articles on game maps in a general encyclopedia. I have no objection to pointing interested people to more specialised resources out there (which can be wiki-based even!), but we don't ourselves have to be such a resource. However, I would recommend people who have strong opinions on this matter (i.e., people who have voted strongly for or against in this AfD) to try and draw up some notability criteria for video game information. In this instance a little bit of instruction creep is preferable to a deluge of AfDs if it will establish clear consensus standards. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I'd like to help out with that. It seems to be one of the more debated items on AFD as of late, so it'd be nice to establish some guidelines which would help streamline future AFDs on video game material. I'll try to start thinking of some general guidelines - feel free to message me if anyone here is interested as well (regardless of which way you voted of course). Wickethewok 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:if anyone giving their opinion about move/delete this info played WOW, they would realize that ALL info on the pages are so sumarized that can only be used for lore/information needs. nobody kill a mob in a dungeaon by reading wikipedia stuff. its just silly to base your arguments on "game guides" maybe wikipedia is not a place for game info huh?--Santosusaf 10:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Cannot anyone edit articles for clarity and to fit the guidelines? Why don't you just edit the articles to remove the "guide" data and leave the lore data and other non-"game guide" information (which, arguably, constitutes the majority of the articles, as there is little actual "guide" content within them) if you have such a problem with them? I still cannot help but believe that, for some reason, you are biased against either World of Warcraft or Blizzard in general. Perhaps you're an EQ2 player or something. Seansquared 11:42, 20 July 2006
  • Assuming you're addressing me (if you're not, ignore me ;) ), I love Blizzard. Played D2, SC, WC2 for a loooong time. Wickethewok 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well you did post the AfB and so the majority of comments must be directed at you, eh? Poking aside, I've begun editing some of the articles for clarity and removing the "guide" information. I will update with lore and non-guide information (to maintain a level of "encyclopedic-worthy content. I would request a minimum period of 5 to 10 weeks to thoroughly update and modify the above noted articles so as to avoid their deletion. I do believe that World of Warcraft, it's lore and fantasy, and all non-guide information related to it, certainly meets or exceeds any notoriety standards that Wikipedia holds itself to, and that the articles are merely under scrutiny due to the excessive (though not IMO) amount of "guide" content. I hope to rectify this as soon as humanly possible. Note that I am not the original contributor nor editor. Seansquared 12:08, 20 July 2006
  • merge - Move lore and general information to a World of Warcraft: Instanced Dungeons page and remove most 'gameguide' information about phat lootz or strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.56.147 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete all. Repetitive, yes, but WP:NOT a game guide. As noted, there's a WoW wiki where these would (presumably) be right at home. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all -- These kinds of articles and details are useful in another wiki, but definitely WP:NOT -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • PLEASE KEEP- My boyfriend plays World of Warcraft or WoW as he calls it..and he and his friends are always talking about the dungeons..Wiki lets me understand at least a little bit of what he is talking about..BTW I hate that game! -Welchsta1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Welchsta1 (talk • contribs) .
  • Merge - There is way too much game info in most of these, but I think if everything were to be pared down it could make a good "Instances in WoW" article. --Polkapunk 18:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep -- As mentioned above, precedent supports keeping this kind of information, although I think it is more appropriate in WoWiki --circuitloss 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -this is a legendary world that also has numerous novels based on these locations- if deleted may also infer that any fictional region should be deleted i.e. The Shire (which is also used in a video game). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.21.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I find the idea alone of deleting valueable information from Wikipedia disturbing. Even if it were a game guide (which in my opinion it is not) why delete it? Many people visit this page exactly for the information given here. The reason I visit WikiPedia is not because I expect only encyclopedia material; it is because I expect to find NPV information on a subject which is written and reviewed by a group of people that figured it was worth the effort to put it out here. Sure, there are areas in the article that aren't very encyclopia 'worthy' (I have my own ideas on HOW to approach a fight) but if that would be a reason to delete an article, WP would be a very different place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.224.124 (talk • contribs)
  • You, like many other new users posting here, should really learn some basic Wikipedia policies before posting comments here. You have come here in search of unencyclopedic content. Until that picture in the upper left hand corner says "Wikipedia: The Free Place-to-Add-Whatever-You-Like", this is still an encyclopedia, regardless of what you would prefer it to be. Though this may not be your point exactly, the argument alone for keeping this information because it does not exist elsewhere should ring warning bells of original research and lack of verifiability. Wickethewok 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just something I've noticed since the AFD started is articles such as these seem to get worse over time. Judging by article histories and even just the activity on them in the past few days, most content is filled out by IP users with no interest in Wikipedia's policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. Unlike other articles, these unreferenced level guides seem to get worse over time, rather than improve. During my time cleaning up/watching "List of Weapons in Halo 2", I found this to be the case as well, so this phenomenon is certainly not limited to any particular game. While this is not a reason for deletion by any means, it seems relevant to those who feel these articles can and will be cleaned up over time. Wickethewok 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - but excise game-guide content. The background information and "lore" regarding the instances are appropriate for WP, at least so long as detailed information about many other fictional worlds remains. SS451 04:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Same reasons as mentioned above, their existence is justified, just replace the junk with more factual content. The Cruel Barb comment, for example, can be changed to mention that Thottbot doesn't report the existence of any other one-handed weapons acquirable at level 19 with a higher damage-per-second rating. There are TONS of factual, verifiable, and citable information tidbits like that you can grab off of index sites like WoW Guru, Thottbot, and Allakhazam. Riotgear 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, complete nonsense and totally useless. -- 83.236.79.246 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all these articles are completely inward-looking, and without significance in the real world. Zargulon 10:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, I offer the following arguements: (1) These articles represent real knowledge about a long standing fantasy universe. This fantasy universe has been worked on for more than a decade by one of the most successful game companies in the world today Blizzard and it seems likely that this information will be of interest for many years to come. The information about the WoW instances is directly comparable to detailed information currently in the Wikipedia about such unreal locations as Lórien and many other fictional locations such as: Westeros, Galactic quadrants (Star Trek), etc.). (2) These articles are not game guides in that they do not provide detailed maps showing the locations of monsters or detailed strategies for defeating said monsters. Instead they by-and-large fit the idea of an encyclopdia entry so that when someone says to you "Have you ever heard of the Motlen Core in WoW?" you can say "No... but give me 5 minutes on Wikipedia and I'll have some idea what you are talking about". (3) Any attempt at merging would result in an article which was too large as there are a great many instances in WoW and more are added as the game continues. (4) There are a number of works of fiction that have been published set in the "Warcraft Universe". If all these instance articles are deleted because they describe (some) things only found in the game WoW, what logic would justify keeping the other articles in Wikipedia which describe places that also don't exist except in works of popular fiction? Should the Wikipedia be biased against unreal game locations vs. unreal published fictional locations? Note also that there are plans (which may come to nothing) to release a big-budget movie set in the World of Warcraft universe. I'm not willing to ague which article about which minor feature of a minor game should be deleted but WoW is (a) the most popular game in the world for a year now (b) part of an established fictional landscape which exists beyond WoW and into other fields of art. Wikipedia clearly has room for articles which describe fictional locations. WoW's fictional locations are, in my opinion, important enough to maintain their existance in the Wikipedia. Cglassey 20:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep these pages due to their extreme notability and encyclopedic use. The history and background information of these locations are fit to be on Wikipedia, but any so-called "strategy guides" should be sent to WoWWiki. Also instead of "game guide" section here could be short descriptions of the instance itself such as the names of the bosses found within and what kind of creatures inhabit this instance/location. Not to mention the ideas that people who wish to delete are suggesting could result in a somewhat worse situation than that which you sought to prevent. Tacitus666 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tacitus666. -ScotchMB 01:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All. Stuff with encyclopedic value is already at Instance (World of Warcraft). The game guides belong on wowwiki, which is an excellent resource that many World of Warcraft players already know about. Resolute 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the names but remove guide-like content. As some previous editors have said, some locations of the game have become sufficiently notable to merit inclussion, but game guides don't belong here. Sarg 07:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All these pages due to their extreme notability and encyclopedic use.Based on the information here million find very useful why would you want to delete the information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huylyn (talk • contribs)
  • Delete All Information is all ready at Instance (World of Warcraft). No need to have so many articles here about this. Aeon Insane Ward 13:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All These pages should be here as reference to fictional places inserted in a fantasy world. Their interest is not only for players of a particular game but also encyclopedic for the common fantasy novel lover, as they are becoming part of popular culture. SirM 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All These pages conatin more Lore of the series and more encyclopedic material then they do game guide information, if the problem lies with that information, please by all means fix it. I would like to note Wickethewok has been actively attempting to delete all information and articles pertaining to the game in general and in fact, if I'm not correct, the behavior is considered a violation of the terms of abuse for this website. This is an open encyclopedia and Wikipedia has been for a long time, well known as the place to get your offbeat, net-culture information, several people recently have been attempting to remove that and it needs to stop. So noting, people who are not a part of the communities, nor experienced in the information they are trying to dictate as notable, non-notable, encyclopedic, or non-encyclopedic really shouldn't be considered the authorities on what is and is not fact. These pages contain valuable information that is in fact, quite a notable contribution to the current days culture, at least in the realm of gaming (considering nearly 7 million active subscribers to the game). Deleting this would be ignoring such a strong sentiment and completely against the purpose of an active content, online encyclopedia. Seraphna 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: You may want to also check out Wickethewok's user page and note that several of his articles, particularly those on widely unheard of electronic music creators, fail to live up to WP:NOT standards. It's a nice double-standard that he follows. Seansquared 12:32, 24 July 2006
  • Which articles are you referring to specifically? I'd be more than happy to fix them. Though, I'd like to point out this is not necessarily relevant to this AFD. Also, what part of WP:NOT are you saying they violate? I'm not sure what part of WP:NOT you could apply to a musician/producer. Wickethewok 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hmm, nothing really jumped out at me on Wickethewok's page as WP:VSCA or WP:NOT. But, since WP is a collaborative effort, keep in mind that WP:DEL can be used by any editor, yourself included, to help improve WP. -- MrDolomite | Talk 02:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All The "Wikipedia is not a game guide" argument smacks of smugness, ignorance, elitism and nazi-like desire for control over content. You don't burn books in the 21st century. Those pages containt helpful information, are referenced and have nothing to with game guides, it can't be helped that the majority of the audience for said articles will be made out of game users. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. daflipman 02:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Impressive! Most new editors usually make it to at least double digit edits before comparing other editors to Nazis. While I understand how you can feel frustrated, its usually not in your best interest to appear uncivil. I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing verifiable information to Wikipedia in the future. Wickethewok 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Clearly you are passionate about the AfD discussion, daflipman. Please remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and not to jump to conclusions about other contributors' possible motivations. Having that kind of discussion quickly moves away from Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, detracts from the original point, which is discussing the possible deletion of the article. Thanks for participating. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't speak for everyone, but I have not said I "don't like it." I do feel, that while it shouldn't be "here" (as in wikipedia), it is definitely worthy of being "there" (as in another gaming wiki). Personal POV about WP content: if WP becomes a majority of articles about new bands, non-notable school, StarTrek, computer games and weaselly company ad-spam, then people will go elsewhere. All those things can be online, and maybe one solution is to have WP become the #REDIRECT jumping off point to other topic's wikis. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, too specialized and gamecrufty for a general encyclopedia. I know that adding whatever you want makes editors feel valued and be able to take a break, but there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:28, 25 July 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.