Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professions (World of 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. Proto::type 12:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professions (World of Warcraft)

Professions (World of Warcraft) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article's content seems to be a game guide in its entirety, which fails WP:NOT. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of deletion, but it seems to at least technically qualify. I'll abstain. Brad Beattie (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, 100% pure fanboy cruft. L0b0t 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Reasonable information about a notable MMORPG. While I can understand game guide concerns, information about a significant aspect in a game does not automatically qualify. FrozenPurpleCube 16:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research, indiscriminate collection of information, excessive coverage of a topic on which we already have a supersufficiency ofarticles. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How is a listing of specific attributes of a game indiscriminate? And what would you consider non-excessive coverage? FrozenPurpleCube 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that this information is already thoroughly contained within WoWWiki --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Prescence of information elsewhere besides Wikipedia is not always a good reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per LObOt and Guy.--Folantin 18:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Guy: WP:NOT a game guide. Or a place for useless cruft, for that matter. Moreschi 18:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you please explain how and where this article is a game guide? FrozenPurpleCube 19:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "The various gathering professions are all means to an end, never an end in themselves. A player may take a gathering profession to supplement his crafting profession, or simply to sell the items he gathers, but the products of these professions are never directly beneficial in and of themselves." All that is what I would expect to see in a game guide. It is total junk of no encyclopaedic benfit whatsoever. Wikipedia is not here to tell people what to do to get through the next level. Also, per WP:FICT, this piece of trash should be written from a real-world perspective: it clearly isn't. Just being part of WOW is not good enough on its own: this article must relate to the real world. It doesn't, in addition to other concerns. Moreschi 20:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    That's not a game guide to me, since it merely describes how Professions function within the game. If anything, that introductory paragraph is essential to understanding professions within World of Warcraft, so that you would pick it out as a problem makes me question your definition of a game guide. How is understanding what professions are within the game total junk of no encyclopaedic benefit whatsoever? How does that even tell anyone how to get to the next level? It doesn't even tell you how to advance within levels, or provide advice about the best things to do with a given skill. Nor do I concur with your WP:FICT complaints. This isn't a plot summary, and the article clearly distinguishes between this world and the World of Warcraft. It even provides some context within the game for the perceived value of certain skills. Sorry, but you have failed to show any substantial merit to your complaints. FrozenPurpleCube 14:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per L0b0t and Guy's coments. Edison 19:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a game guide, this is non-encylopedic and there are a million other places to find this info on the 'net. NeoFreak 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Pointless argumentation as Wikipedia dosn't delete articles just because "there are a million other places to find this info on the net". If this was the case Wikipedia could just as well close it's doors right now as 90% of all information on WP is from online sources. Oh, and no, this article doesn't break WP:NOT, as it doesn't tell you how to play the game. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your "counter-argumentation" is bust. I'm not advocating deletion "just because" anything. This article is fancruft, un-encyclopedic, a game guide AND it's info can be found in a million other (more appropriate) places to boot. This article does indeed explain, in depth, game-play mechanics and is therefore a game guide. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for every fanboy's favorite game; It's an encyclopeida. Try tripod. NeoFreak 10:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Since when was something being able to be found elsewhere grounds for deletion from Wikipedia? And could you explain how this article is not encyclopedic? What is un-encyclopedic to you? And how is this article in-depth? It's clearly not. And fancruft is not a good argument in the first place. FrozenPurpleCube 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is it necessary to have an explanation of each profession and what it can do? No, a paragraph in the main article about them is plenty for an understanding. The rest is just fancruft. -Amarkov blahedits 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think it is desirable to have an explanation of each profession on a single page, with a description of what they can do. This is no different from the classes and races of WoW. FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It was a part of the main article, but if you have even looked at the main article you might have noticed that it's already huge and bloated, and the reason this was moved was for that reason. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Clear game guide Bwithh 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please, give me an example. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't have game guides, horrible precedent to set. Stare decisis can bite you in the ass. ReverendG 06:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I would love for anyone here to give me an example on what in this article actually reads as a game guide.. It doesn't tell you how to play, only what each profession is. If this is a game guide, then we must AfD almost all game/movie and book related articles on Wikipedia, as they also tell you about their subject matter. A most pointless AfD by a user who started by prodding it, which I removed as someone changed the entire article. And now, he AfDs it. I assume good faith, but I'm concerned about the reasoning from the nominator. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Hey there Havok. I'd just like to clarify that my nomination is indeed in good faith. I'm honestly concerned about how the article sits with WP:NOT#IINFO. I don't feel that the professions in the game are any more notable than, say, the types of armour or the weapon proficiencies. As best I understand it, a game guide covers the mechanics of a game and an encyclopedia covers what makes a game special and noteworthy.
As for Wikipedia:Game guide, when I read the "...certain attacks by the opponent will trigger a visual cue, a vibration of the controller, and a chime. Attacking at that point causes Link to dodge or parry then counter-attack from the rear" it sounds very much like the kind of content that defines a game guide. Yes, it's written in a much better tone, but the information it carries doesn't seem encyclopedic.
Clearly though, we disagree on what should be included here and I don't believe that we'll come to quick agreement either way. Still, I wanted to clarify my reasoning for nominating this article. Hopefully we can get some other users to look at this and provide some external perspective. --Brad Beattie (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Really, I think covering the mechanics of a game is part of what makes a good encyclopedia. For example, you make an article about Super Mario Brothers. It helps to explain how the game is played. Same goes with sports like Football, Baseball and even Chess. Which if you look at them, contain much the same kind of stuff which you object to. FrozenPurpleCube 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like everyone to check out Wikipedia:Game guide, it's in the early stages of setting precedence for what constitutes a game guide. And I would like everyones input on it. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks Havok, I'll go add my thoughts. FrozenPurpleCube 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Forked out of the main article to an article for each profession, then was condensed into one page to remove game guide content. The content here is what would be relavent to the main article without getting into too much gamecruft. It seems to me that there is a group of Wikipedians that want almost zero game content on Wikipedia. For someone playing the game this information is next to useless, but someone wondering WoW is, this basic info is useful. As far as OR goes, well about the only reference that could be used is the game itself, or possibly the manual. PPGMD 16:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Too big to be merged into main World of Warcraft article. Doesn't seem "crufty" to me. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of character classes. Ben Standeven 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Have you even read or seen the article? This has nothing to do with "character classes".. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ridiculously Strong Keep It's Classes in World of Warcraft again! How is this a game guide? It explains what the professions are, and basic use. If it had a list of what zones had which ores/herbs/etc, then you would have a point. If it gave information on how to complete the specialization quests (IE Tribal/Elemental/Dragonscale leatherworking) then you would have a point. But there is NOBODY bringing up any points other then "no it should be deleted." It's hard to assume good faith with this. Also, WP:CVG states "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable." The content has value for people interested in joining the game, thus it is kosher. -Ryanbomber 13:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC) -Ryanbomber 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Anything that descibes gameplay mechanics is a "how to" and therefore a game guide. NeoFreak 05:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No, actually, it's not. Game play mechanics fall under rules, and is a vital part when describing anything remotely interactive. I would like to forward you to these articles; Baseball, Chess, Monopoly, Go, Basketball etc. All these articles describe in detail game play mechanics, rules and even strategies. All of which break what you are citing. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I totally understand where confusion could arise from those examples. In the articles covering sports it is vital to descibe these sport's rules in order to differentuate them from others. They easily fall under WP:IAR and the guildline (and it is just a guildline) of WP:COMMON. You have to have a basic understanding of the rules of these games so you can understand what makes it "football" or "soccer" or "chess". In addition these are famous and influential sports and games, their influence streches back hundreds of years and their impact is incalcuable. The need to descibe the diffrence between the specific rules and game play mechanics of "World of Warcraft" and "Everquest" don't quite equate. Videogames can be given an encyclopedic overview and all cheats, in depth game mechanics, game play points, etc can and should be covered for interested parties with a few simple lines of external links to the sites that are devoted to that: Game Guide sites. NeoFreak 08:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I still fail to see the relevance of what you are saying. Basically what you are saying is "computer and video games are unimportant". At least that's what it looks like. As you brought up chess in your example, I would say it's equally important to describe the rule set of a video game as it is a board game or sport. The only difference between them is that many people don't see computer and video games as a "notable" hobby so to speak. And I would also think WP:IAR applies to CVG just as much as chess and soccer. Oh, and this article doesn't fail WP:NOT in any instance. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment BTW, you say that those games impacts are incalcuable. Well, maybe. Does that mean we can't decide what articles should or should not be kept on them, or that WOW's 7.5 million players don't matter? Isn't that enough of an impact for a few articles? Football has over a dozen just describing gameplay. Chess even has an article on strategies and tactics. Not to mention several spin-offs from there. Why does Wikipedia get to be a gameguide for Chess? (And that's not even bringing up the huge list of chess players.) WoW has less than 50 articles. What is wrong with this one? FrozenPurpleCube 16:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Game play mechanics != instruction manual. Saying something exists in the game is fine. Saying how to do something is not. "Engineers turn ore into explosives" is fine because it explains, in general, what Engineers do. "Goblin Engineers with 235 skill can turn 1 Mithril Casing, 1 Goblin Rocket Fuel, 6 Solid Dynamites, and 1 Unstable Trigger into The Big One" is not because it explains how to accomplish something, namely how to make The Big One. -Ryanbomber 18:10, 23 November 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.