Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forsaken (Warcraft)

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 (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forsaken (Warcraft)

Forsaken (Warcraft) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced, unnotable gamecruft containing plot summaries.

There are no sources in this article, which may suggest there is no real world notability of this article relevant to non-Warcraft players. It even has a chart depicting the various classes avaliable to the various races, something irrelevant outside of Warcraft.

It contains gamecruft that may spawn original research, adding more of the issue of unsourced material.

This article contains plot summaries, something Wikipedia is not and is generally not needed here. IAmSasori 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
• Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT

WP:HARMLESS again. User:Krator (t c) 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is a good argument.--Neverpitch 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, it's not; hence the existence of the link. JuJube 07:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That link is bullshit. Just the opinion of someone, not even a guideline or policy.--Neverpitch 19:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:WAF and WP:GAMECRUFT. This article should be deleted, because it is excessively detailed, impossible to sources for, and it puts undue weight on one aspect of the game.

Excessive detail means that this article contains trivia, and that some details are included for their own sake, without any context and without any helpful addition to aid the reader's understanding of the topic. Plot summaries are only appropriate in Wikipedia where they aid the rest of the article by providing necessary background information. Furthermore, the article, within the context of the topic it draws its notability from, puts undue weight one aspect: the lore and plot of the game, and other specifics. See WP:WAF and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This aspect does not deserve more attention than, for example, the reception and the development of the game.

Finally, we have to look if the alternatives for deletion (WP:ATD) could be employed to save the article from destruction. Merging is an impossibility here, because none of the content is properly sourced, and simply moving the excessive detail will not solve that problem. Also, the problem of putting undue weight on one aspect of the game will not disappear with a merge. Editing to remove the bad parts of the article would leave nothing there. The content is not only without sources, but it is also impossible to find any reliable secondary coverage for it. This is an important requirement, as Wikipedia could verbatim repeat all that is said in a certain game without it. See also WP:VG/S#Video games User:Krator (t c) 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no valid arguments for retaining this page have been advanced. AnteaterZot 10:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wholly an in-universe plot description without any reliable sources. Notable within World of Warcraft itself, please to redirect if you will. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Please review the article I've made some changes and cited it a bit. The article is poorly written, and I've had to re-write the intro to assert the notability of this race, but this pertains to one of the primary races in what is currently the world's most popular MMO, hosting over 9 million active players. That's really about as notable as something involving a video game can get, and based on previous Featured Articles of the Day, such notability is more than acceptable on Wikipedia. -Harmil 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but it has to be further noted that all of this could be written in the space this topic has within Playable races in the Warcraft series#Undead_(Forsaken). The primary races (or, in a layman's terms, the primary plot elements) of a game of such a scope are indeed notable, however, this line of reasoning does not extend to showing why each should have a separate article. User:Krator (t c) 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability is not inherited. Why is this race notable in the real world? Have secondary sources discussed it? The article has almost no out-of-universe information. There should at a bare minimum be a section about the design development of the race. Take a look at Master Chief (Halo), particularly the "Character design" and "Impact and reception" sections. If there is no available information of this sort, there is nothing to warrant a separate article. Pagrashtak 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Harmil. Rray 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The massive amount of problems this article has, chief among them a complete lack of notability, make this a sure delete. Judgesurreal777 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Lack of notability is not this article's problem (though it has many). Being one of the two playable factions in the world's most popular video game played by 9 million people worldwide is as notable as anything in a video game ever gets. Sorry... it's early for me. Yeah, I'm commenting on the wrong AfD. -Harmil 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--Silverhand^Talk 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "redirect" is not an option with respect to external Wikis. You meant "transwiki". -Harmil 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but no attempts to find sources appear to have been made. WP:ATD says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Edward321 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this fancruft does not have reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 November 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.