Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horde (Warcraft)

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, because no policy-based reasons to keep have been advanced. This article has been around since 2004 apparently without ever having any sources, from which we can infer that it will not likely acquire any soon. WP:V alone mandates deletion, let alone the WP:NOT and WP:NOR / WP:N arguments set forth below. Sandstein (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horde (Warcraft)

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

An entire year has gone by without an attempt at adding sources. Along with this, it has plot summaries and unnotable fancruft.

With the lack of sources, this article is most likely unnotable to non-Warcraft players and the real world.

The article contains WP:CRUFT which may develop original research, continuing the trend of increasing cruft with no sources.

Finally, there are plot summaries within this article, something Wikipedia is not. These issues are most likely not to be resolved without an Articles for deletion and is justified a discussion. IAmSasori 22:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep but trim substantially. I know that there's a tendency to react strongly to video games because they're video games, but when a game has 9 million active subscribers and continues to be the world's most subscribed video game after 3 years, we kind of have to accept that it's more of a cultural phenomenon than your run of the mill video game. That said, this article should be trimmed and sourced. I'm sort of surprised that wasn't done, since sourcing information about the horde isn't exactly hard with 600,000 google hits, I'm sure we can find a few reviews in decent publications to reference and there's even a book of essays from various authors that's likely to stand up as a secondary source on some topics that would touch on this. A couple of references to prime the pump:
From there I think it should be fairly easy... -Harmil 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - obviously notable, lack of attempts to find sources does not indicate lack of sources. Furthermore, a good candidate for merging other articles into. User:Krator (t c) 01:45, 14 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 01:50, 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
  • Keep per Neverpitch and Harmil. Rray 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--SilverhandTalk 16:07, 15 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) 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as these stock characters have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game.
  • Delete No sources, unlikely to find sources. Warcruft. Quatloo (talk) 13:27, 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.