Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DotA Allstars (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 no consensus. There are some "merge" votes, but there is another discussion for the merge of the article ongoing, so these were not counted. – Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 10:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DotA Allstars

Page amounts to a game guide (violating WP:NOT) for a non-notable subject (a spin-off version of the custom map Defense of the Ancients for the computer game Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne), with an excessive trivia section. JimmyBlackwing 03:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Dota allstars is currently the most played game on the WC engine, apart from the actual game itself. It is notable enough to have its own article -- Librarianofages 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There seems to have been some confusion in the history. It was merged after the previous AfD (which ended with merge and redirect), the redirect was then deleted to make way for moving a page created under a different name, perhaps a demerged version. No vote.--Chaser T 03:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The notability of DotA Allstars has gone up significantly since that last AfD in 2005. That is likely the reason for it popping up again. --JRavn 05:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as not encyclopedic. The two main parts of the article are a version history and an explanation of the inspiration for each of the heroes (characters). I think that this may be original research as it may not be published anywhere else. Thus, it probably also fails to be verifiable. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service. A lot of work by the DotA community went into this article, so I hope there is someplace to which it could be trans-wikied. --Habap 10:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The article used to also contain sections on terminology (most of which was not specific to DotA), verbal acknowledgements when making kills in the game and a collection of weblinks. The current version looks odd without those sections, which may provide a better article, though don't necessarily make it any more encyclopedic and do make it more of a game guide. --Habap 10:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Some Transwiki, Some Keep - Being played on the internet is not a acceptable claim of notability; Being a map heavily used in tournaments /is/. I know it's been mentioned numerous times on TechTV (pre-merger) and on G4 (post-merger) if the tournament notability isn't enough. The issue is the style of writing in the article; The answer is {{sofixit}}. Transwiki some of the content to something like Gameguides (or whatever it's name is), leave minor focus on the structure of it, and instead focus on it's use in the tournament setting and, possibly, it's recognition by Blizzard Entertainment. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 16:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do they use DotA or DotA:Allstars in the tournaments? --Habap 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

DotA:Allstars has been included in blizzard tournaments recently (few months ago). That should be added to this article. eventine 13:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. How is this a game guide? There's no description on how to play with the items and heroes, or the game mechanics, only where they get the names from. Nevertheless, if the article is kept (only on the condition that it really has been used in major tournaments, which can be verified) the section with items and heroes should be removed and replaced with which tournaments use the mod. Either that, or merge into a warcraft custom mods article. --ColourBurst 17:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The tournament information is in the final paragraph of the opening section of Defense of the Ancients and references the CPL page] on DotA. It states in the rules that they user version 6.32b, which sounds like a DotA:A version. I have never played the game, so I don't know. --Habap 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - If someone can find and cite information from reliable sources claiming that this WC3 map is especially of interest (eg. most popular map used in tournaments, press coverage from relatively important sources) over the next couple days, maybe its worth a keep, but if no one presents any reliable sources after this reasonable amount of time, I say delete. That said, the article's content/writing is terrible and most of it is likely original research. Wickethewok 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not really a game guide it's more of a list of things updated to the map. Either way it's not encyclopedic. Whispering 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While it is more of a list, it is not an update list. There is nothing in what WP:NOT that I think this page violates. eventine 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not a game guide, but almost all of the content is on the other DoTA page. Why even bother a merge? David Fuchs 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Very little of the information is listed on the other page. Look at the allusions and point to wheres that listed on the other page? eventine 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I agree that some of the article is completely useless especially the development. The player trends has importance and should mention that Blizzard now includes DotA Allstars as part of the tournaments. Does need citations, but that is difficult to find whereas if you actually go on Bnet you will see more people play DotA than any other custom map. Outside of the game development section, the article is not a game guide as it does not suggest what heroes/items do. What I think is most important is that this is the ONLY version of DotA still played. That combined with its popularity and inclusion in tournaments should merit a keep. eventine 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment A citation on the use of DotA can be found in the end of the opening section of Defense of the Ancients. If DotA:Allstars is the version use for that and is the only version of DotA still being played, why not just merge whatever useful information there is into that article? The section on allusions doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but might be interesting in a game guide. --Habap 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

DotA article is a history of the development of DotA spin offs, but none of the other games are really popular to such an extent. In my opinion, the DotA articles should be merged. But since this isn't about merging but deleting, I have to go with a keep. I think that allusions and cultural references do belong in an encyclopedia. eventine 15:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Typically, people who want to keep the information but not the article vote something like Merge or Trans-wiki. There also is no reason that we can't merge the information now and make the vote irrelevant. Do you really think identifying the source of every character is encyclopedic? There like 49 characters and 20 items. That seems like excessive detail. Regardless, if that's the information here that ought to be retained, let's copy it to the main article and be done with this. --Habap 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I really do think that the details are important. I think they're interesting and informative. And I think they should remain in the article. Excessive is if we look for every possible source or potential allusion for every hero/item. eventine 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The information on the heroes and items is unencyclopedic, and sections themselves are pure original research, in addition to being largely speculation. Even if the article is kept, the sections will need to be removed. JimmyBlackwing 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It strikes me as an informative page. If one doesn't know what the subject is, he can learn by reading this article. Which is kinda the point of any article. And any more information then the needed (like version history) can be removed from the article. --Acid Ammo 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article was improperly redirected and marked as having the AfD closed without it being closed here, so I have reverted that. Assuming the article gets deleted, wouldn't it best redirect to Defense of the Ancients? --Habap 10:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - acutally, I was reinstating the verdict following the previous AFD. I didn't realise it was up for AFD again. Proto::type 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - whatever the previous verdict was, i am sure the redirect wasn't to warcraft iii... we should just merge this into dota and get it over with. the information here is interesting/good enough that it shouldn't be lost completely. eventine 13:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:V. Proto::type 10:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, much of this game cruft should not make the DoTA article, as it was also nominated for a merge. But Merge, don't delete all of it. David Fuchs 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this page and delete Defense of the Ancients. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Furthermore, these two pages are not notable enough to have a separate page on Wikipedia. Perhaps they can be briefly mentioned in the Warcraft III article. (Emphasis on briefly which means that I do not support a complete merge). Sijo Ripa 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Haven't we been here before? Whispering 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per User:Proto --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep More notable and popular than original game and most of it is verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsdemir (talk • contribs)
• Keep This is most famous map on Battle.net --SasaStefanovic • 03:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge/redirect to Defense of the Ancients. There's no need for both pages. The current article violates WP:V badly, and I don't think anything could be done to change that. There's no need for both pages. Defense of the Ancients already covers Allstars well enough. Keep This is definitely a notable topic. A google search returns over a million results, almost all of which are relevent. If anything, Defense of the Ancients needs to be deleted - it looks like a duplicate. The classic AOS maps are not notable, only Allstars is worth mentioning. I would guess that the majority of War3 players are playing DotA. The article itself could use some cleanup and citations though. --JRavn 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The content of Defense of the Ancients is what should go into DotA Allstars. They should be merged and one deleted (I'd say Defense of the Ancients because DotA Allstars is the notable name). The current content of the DotA Allstars article is bad, but again, I don't think that's reason to delete it but it needs to be fixed. --JRavn 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge with Defense of the Ancients. Weak because the entire Defense of the Ancients article is threatening to be taken over by AllStars information. If the other variants of DotA were expanded, it would be great but the article would be too large. So my vote is delete all the information below ==Allusions== and merge with Defense of the Ancients, but we need more information about the other versions, seriously. x42bn6 Talk 07:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 04:58, 31 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.