Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protoss

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 no consensus. There appear to be a variety of distinct issues here. First, it isn't clear that WP:FICTION is the most or only relevant guideline since it is an optional side for a game. Second, the presence of Korean sources make it likely that a large number of reliable sources do in fact exist. However, I strongly recommend that those wishing to save this article from future AfDs find people who can read Korean and gain their assistance in sourcing the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea would be a good place to start. If after a few months it becomes apparent that the claimed sources do not exist or that no one is going to bother adding them in, then it should be reAfDed. JoshuaZ 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protoss

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

This appears to be WP:FANCRUFT about a fictional race. The article is comprised of original research and the absence of independent sources means it fails notability guidelines WP:FICTION. --Gavin Collins 13:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • "Appears"? You seriously have never heard of Starcraft? Fine, fine, Redirect it back to the game if you really want to. --Agamemnon2 16:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I have heard about it, but alas notability is not inhertited. --Gavin Collins 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with rewrite; Protoss are 1 of 3 factions in one of the most notable computer/video games there is. Only "Protoss philosophy" is marked WP:OR; the rest just needs trimming and proper attribution. Eleland 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: this article is highly notable within video gaming, and although it badly needs a rewrite due to the overflow of plot details, deletion is a bit extreme. A rewrite is on my to-do list, along with it's companion races that will heavily condense the plot details and include development, design, reception and other real-world information that is required under WP:Fiction. Myself and another editor are slowly cleaning up StarCraft related articles, and we will get the rewrite done eventually, but don't expect it to happen overnight. You can still go ahead and delete it if you really want to: when the rewrite is complete we will make sure they fully complies with notability guidelines before it is introduced to the mainspace. -- Sabre 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, with major rewrite to address the very substantial concerns presented — and notice that a discussion on major rewrites was recently begun at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Imbalanced_article.2C_and_proposal_to_fix — the voting here already has overlapping participation with the discussion there. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 22:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOTINHERITED. Any rewrite isn't going to change the fact that it fails notability. Miremare 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - is it bad right now? Most definitely. But confident enough real-world info can be found to save it. David Fuchs (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notability not an issue. I admit a little personal bias, but I think the game (and its races) are well known enough. I would suggest a rewrite adding a section on Progamers who play Protoss, possibly including play style(s). Alex Heinz 01:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, fails WP:N. Jay32183 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - I cast my vote above, but to respond to the factual issues of breadth of source coverage and WP:NOTINHERITED - Starcraft has been reported on in such an extensive breadth of different journalistic sources, far outside the typical gaming magazines and books, and the three races make such a distinctive impact on game play, with well-reported-on professional players typically having one of the three races that they characteristically play, that notability and source potential have easily extended to cover the individual races as well as the game itself. Just to take the first example I tried googling, see specific mention of the Protoss in this article in the New York Times. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete That NY times article gives a one line mention of protoss, which is far from the "significant coverage" required by WP:N. I dont see anyone giving significant coverage other than game guides Corpx 04:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete still lacks that significant WP:N coverage, despite the cries of Keep from the Starcraft fans. --Oscarthecat 06:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED, as above. Percy Snoodle 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - WP:NOTINHERITED also tells us that the creation of sub-articles, while not implying an "inherited notability" per se, can be acceptable for practical reasons. As the whole game is constructed around three different races and also game reviews seem to look at them in turn, this would IMO be such a case and in any case we shouldn't delete just one of the three. --Tikiwont 12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, highly important. As Sabre and others have mentioned, it badly needs a rewrite but is notable and important. The Clawed One 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Importance should be determined by coverage from reliable sources Corpx 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I can tell you right now that a simple Google will show that several gaming sites have reported on the Protoss and their presence in StarCraft. The Clawed One 14:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If two or more of them give "significant coverage", then I'll gladly change my position Corpx 14:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft.org Battle.net Gamespot GotFrag GameReplays Here you go, although I admit the first one is a fansite and the second the official site. But they do give in-depth coverage that in tandem with third-party sources would be helpful. The Clawed One 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't see significant coverage there. The first two, as you say, don't really count, and the other three articles seem to be mentioning Protoss simply because they happen to be the playable faction in the demo they're previewing. Miremare 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
By that same logic, Harry Potter isn't notable because he only appears in books. The Clawed One 18:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Notability is significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a natural lifecycle that WP articles on seem to go through. If ther subject is popular enough, then the article may grow to the extent that it subdivides into separate pieces. At some point in the past, this clearly happened to Starcraft with the creation of Zerg, Protoss and Terran (StarCraft), etc. So far, so good. But, as is often quoted on AfD pages, notability is not inherited, so the daughter articles get AfD'd and presumably merged back into their parent articles, which become unwieldy and huge. I don't see how this process improves the articles or wikipedia as a whole. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The trick is to remove content from the parent article rather than just splitting it. Don't split if it won't meet the inclusion criteria on its own, just delete stuff from the article. Jay32183 23:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Are we entirely disregarding all Korean-language coverage now? taion 04:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Where? Corpx 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What's Korea got to do with this? --Oscarthecat 06:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply What Korea has to do with this is it has a professional Starcraft league with players making six-figure (in U.S. dollar) salaries for playing Starcraft full time, in a government-funded Starcraft stadium attended by tens of thousands of Starcraft spectators and on two all-video-game TV stations with prime-time live broadcasts of Starcraft games; and it is rather parochial of us non-Korean-speaking Wikipedians to ignore the wealth of published Korean-language references for this AfD. Incidentally the pro players are also each indelibly associated with which of the three SC races they normally or always play as, so WP:NOTINHERITED is likely not to be an issue. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm noticing that a number of people are going on about sources with "coverage" required by WP:Fiction. However, following the rewrite, this is no longer the case - as long as real-world information is available, whether by significant coverage or by lots of little bits from reliable sources building up a comprehensive section, notability is acquired. Take a look at this quote from Deckiller on the WP:fiction talk page (first comment after the green box)

I prefer notability established by substantial real-world content. Heck, this requirement is actually more of a compromise than requiring multiple independent sources, because a lot of interviews and other material might not be independent. This version of the guideline would actually result in an even greater cutdown of fiction, because a lot of material published about fictional universes is somehow tied to the publisher and/or author, or is only mentioned in passing in various independent articles. That is why we wrote WP:FICT to say "real-world content" instead of "coverage in independent sources"; afterall, there would be no reason to have this page if it was just the same as WP:N. — Deckiller 22:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the article still fails notability on that basis, I just want to make sure you are all clear that lack of significant coverage in independant sources is not in conflict with WP:Fiction, although a lack of any real-world content from a reliable source is. In any case of this AfD, a complete rewrite following WP:Fiction or a deletion will both result in the removal of this current horrible in-universe version, so I won't lose any sleep if this does go. -- Sabre 10:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The article needs a complete overhaul, but the starcraft universe is so massively popular that an article on one of it's key components is not cruft. That said, there is a lot of unnecessary detail in there and the article could do with some major trimming. JMalky 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment SC has aspects of both a work of fiction and a game, the latter being the more important - it should not properly stand or fall on criteria for either alone. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. StarCraft has a highly developed lore and universe, primarily told through video games but also novels. The Clawed One 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
We aren't discussing StarCraft, we're discussing "Protoss". Protoss is a fictional race, which means it must meet WP:FICT to get its own article. It does not meet WP:FICT. Jay32183 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is just as distinctive an aspect of the game as well though - aspects of the game itself unique to the protoss also belong in this article. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 21:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't my point. Protoss does not meet the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. Protoss does not have the sources necessary to make an article on Wikipedia. Jay32183 23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Protoss is significant primarily not as a fictional race, but as a real element of StarCraft gameplay. The significance of Protoss as a work of fiction has no bearing on its significance as a significant, nonfictional element of a major competitive activity. taion 05:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Reasons below:
From WP:NOTINHERITED Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes [and] often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation. Combining all the "non notable" articles relating to starcraft (including Zerg that is also up for deletion by the same nominator) into one article would make it an extreamly long and cumbersome article.
From WP:Fiction#Non-notable_topics The below processes have not been followed, I cannot find a merge request in the article's edit history.
The article can be kept if an obvious potential for notability is shown...
Parts can be merged to a notable article to provide better context...
The article is transwikied to a suitable Wiki (such as Wikia or its Wikipedia Annex) if the above options are unavailable.
The article can be deleted only if the above options are either redundant or unavailable.
Sources can be found:
Google Search - 526,000 results
Google News - 24 results
Google Scholar - 23 results
Other reasons:
Over 1000 article edits.
About 50 links to the article from other pages.
I have been personally attacked had "issues" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zerg when stating my position, hopefully this is clear enough and will not cause me to attract more abuse? Fosnez 10:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You are both misquoting and quoting out of context; none of those are reasons to keep this article:
"The article should be kept if an obvious potential for notability is shown." OK, so where is this potential for notability then?
"Parts can be merged to a notable article to provide better context..." that's not a criteria for keeping a non-notable article, it's a suggestion of what should be done with a non-notable article.
"The article is transwikied to a suitable Wiki (such as Wikia or its Wikipedia Annex) if the above options are unavailable." likewise, this is what should be done with a non-notable article, not a reason to keep it. If anything, these are reasons to delete.
"The article can be deleted only if the above options are either redundant or unavailable". Which apparently they are, as there is resistence to merging for "space" reasons. And the article can easily be transwiki'd by anyone, there doesn't need to be AfD for that to happen. Also, Google hits don't equal notability, neither do number of article edits. Miremare 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
General comment I'm sure you could come up with a regulation that debunks any reason for keeping this article. And vice versa for the opposing argument. What wikipedia really needs is an regulation which states don't try to win AfD arguments by quoting regulations! Can we please stick to discussing this article, it's merits and it's problems, and use common sense to decide on it's notability rather than quoting whatever vague, conflicting (and numerous) rules we can find. JMalky 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
you called? :-) --Kizor 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Jmalky, the rules aren't conflicting, they're clear if not taken out of context or misinterpreted. And the reason these particular rules exist is so that they can be used to decide what deserves a place on Wikipedia and what doesn't. Your suggestion that we ignore them is puzzling. Your other suggestion that we could probably come up with a regulation to debunk any reason for keeping is entirely correct in this case! Miremare 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It may also need to be stated that notability does not equal importance. We do not subjectively debate the notability of an article topic. That is why WP:N exists, so we can discuss article topics objectively. "Protoss" does not have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. Therefore, "Protoss" = not notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Jay32183 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - His suggestion to ignore them is not puzzling, it is policy -> Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (I always seem to get in trouble when I quote that piece of policy). Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -> Protus obviously needs its own page, if for no other reason that combining all the starcraft pages into one would make a huge article as I have said above, and deleting content because we can't "fit it in the article" is just silly (thats why we make subpages). We should not be getting bogged down in the letter of the rules like we seem to be here, but rather, we should be listening to the spirit of them. (I am not saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with my next statement, but rather I am trying to set a precedent with similar articles) Here are a couple of articles that, according to the letter of the law, are not notable and therefore should be deleted. Ace ActiveX Advocate Alpha Tau Omega Americium-242 Analog signal Anagram (I have followed the absolute letter of the law here, with all articles requiring more than once reference from secondary sources, external links not counted as references). Anyway, perhaps I should clarify my position, I am not suggesting we keep the article in its current form, it desperately needs a rewrite.- Fosnez 01:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:IAR is not a free pass. Those other articles you mentioned all have evidence of sources and are just poorly written. Protoss has no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
CommentYou still aren't quite seeing my point. Have another look at Ace, there is no mention of sources and no assertion of notability. Sure we have all seen Aces and think they are important, but according the policies that you have quoted, this article is not notable as per of wikipedia's policies. Now regarding sources, did you even check the one I linked above? Here are just a couple direct links for you [1][2][3][4] - Fosnez 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say those articles had sources, I said there is evidence that sources exist. With Protoss, it is incredibly unlikely that sources exist to establish notability. Even if there were no evidence that sources exist for the other articles, it would not mean that this article should be kept, it would mean those articles should be deleted. Jay32183 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please refer to my above comment. While you can very much debate the notability of Protoss as a fictional race, its coverage as a faction in StarCraft as a playable faction, is more than enough to establish its notability independently. I'll repeat from my comment above, which was apparently disregarded. Using only the fiction notability standards here are insufficient, because Protoss is notable primarily not as the fictional race, but as the gameplay element. taion 14:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (outdent) Comment instead of just insisting Protoss is notable at this AfD, why don't the people who are saying this find reliable sources that prove it, and add them to the article? There will be no argument to be had, if this is done. Miremare 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment It depends whether we can come to a consensus on WP:FICTION being the appropriate criteria here. Certainly references to (from the WP article alone!) , say, Grrrr, Garimto, Reach, Nal_rA, Kingdom, Bisu, or ToSsGirL (granted she plays Terran now \= ) are totally irrelevant if we want to look at the notability of the Protoss as a fictional race alone. Almost all of the discussion here so far has been with respect to notability as an element of fiction, which is, in my view, entirely the wrong way to approach this. However, if consensus holds that this article should be judged entirely from the perspective of the notability of Protoss as a fictional race, then I have no business referencing competitive StarCraft gameplay, regardless of my opinions on why the Protoss (or the Zerg) have notability individually! taion 05:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It also fails the general notability requirement, WP:N. It does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent from the topic. WP:FICT just happens to be the only one of the specific notability categories this could fall into. Jay32183 05:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:N notes "independent of the subject" as referring to "works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". Note that coverage in the gaming media as a whole separate from Blizzard meets this criterion of being "independent of the subject". Would you argue that the Sicilian Defence fails notability criteria simply because it is only covered in the context of Chess? Yes, the article as written has rather anemic coverage of actual relevant material, and it needs significant work. That is neither here nor there with regard to the notability of the underlying topic, though. I'll simply note OSL and KeSPA and how game results always note which race the players use. taion 07:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The difference with Sicilian Defence if that it references multiple reliable sources, all of which are independent, because they're not affiliated with the creator of chess, whoever that might have been. I would also say that a mere mention of Protoss (or anyone else) as the faction used by someone to win a game is trivial, and contributes nothing as a source. Miremare 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:HOPELESS These sources exist. They're just not linked to in the article. I'm not sure if you're familiar with MYM or ToT (MYM specifically is one of the very highest level progaming outfits worldwide), but they'll on occasion provide detailed articles on aspects of strategy, such as the ZvP matchup (Mondragon plays ZvP at a level comparable to some Korean players). BoxeR's autobiography, for example, also contains detailed discussion on the subject (he initiallyed played toss, not terran). WGTour archives a number of articles relating to the various races and matchups specifically. If you want even more extensive, here's an hour-long interview with BoxeR where he does in fact discuss all the races. Here's another one with Nal_rA where there is discussion of the Protoss in particular. Furthermore, with regard to mentions, this is not just a case of single, isolated mentions. StarCraft progamers are identified specifically with the race they play, and this is a crucial part of what defines them (and competitive StarCraft in general). BoxeR's nickname is "Emperor Terran" rather than some generic StarCraft reference for a very good reason. The factions that are chosen are always referenced, because they are perhaps the most important attribute. taion 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
None of the independent sources provide significant coverage . You need to meet all five parts of WP:N, you don't get to pick and choose. Reliability is definitely going to be a huge factor here, most of the sources will be self-published. Jay32183 17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
How exactly is an article focusing entirely on the ZvP matchup not qualifying as "significant coverage" of the Protoss again? Mondragon's article satisfies all the relevant criteria anyway – it's published on behalf of ToT rather than Mondragon himself, and he's certainly an expert in the field, as he is in fact world-class at ZvP. I'd be interested in seeing what sort of argument you have establishing that KBS is somehow not a "reliable" third-party source as well. taion 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
KBS would be a reliable source, but have they aired a show about the Protoss? I'm guessing not, so how significant was their coverage? Miremare 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
KBS regularly interviews StarCraft progamers. These interviews include significant discussion and thus coverage of the relevant races. "Significant coverage" is not the same as "exclusive coverage". Additionally, SC games aired on TV are commentated, including significant discussion of relevant faction-related issues. taion 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Note for example the hour-long KBS BoxeR interview I referenced a few posts up. taion 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I can understand how that might prove the notability of the person being interviewed, but I still fail to see how an a detail such as what faction the person prefers can provide notability sufficient for giving Protoss its own encyclopedia article. It's just a part of the game. There were probably other things mentioned during the interviews too. Miremare 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The interviews include discussion of faction choices, at times significant. Additionally, relevant commentary regarding the races certainly meets the required criteria for being "significant coverage". A number of things are discussed, yes, but the requirement for coverage to be "significant" is not that it must be "exclusive". And things like Mondragon's ZvP guide (and others, but mostly in Korean) also qualify quite easily. taion 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Wait, I may be getting a bit confused with these sources here: why does Mondragon's ZvP guide count as a reliable source? Is it something to do with KBS? Miremare 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It's similar. It's the equivalent of, say, the Giants publishing an article by Barry Bonds on how to bat in baseball. taion 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
So (just to clarify) this article it is actually published by KBS, and contains significant coverage of the Protoss? Miremare —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miremare (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (outdent) I think I might have been unclear. I'm looking at 3 primary groups of references here.
  1. There are a number of strategy articles published by various outfits dealing very specifically with matches involving the Protoss. Mondragon's ZvP guide published by ToT (a progaming group) falls into this category. There is more literature on this in Korean than in English, obviously. These are unrelated to KBS and are instead published by organizations directly related to the game itself, such as gaming teams like ToT or ladder organizations like WGTour.
  2. StarCraft progamers are often interviewed on Korean media, such as the KBS interview with BoxeR I referenced earlier. Some of these interviews contain significant coverage of the actual StarCraft factions, for example in discussions of the individual's playstyle or favored strategies.
  3. Televised StarCraft matches contain substantial amounts of commentary that substantially cover the factions involved.

The third is, I think, the most significant. There's no question of the reliability of the source here, and much of the commentary directly addresses the races and subtopics thereof. taion 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I don't see the first as being reliable sources, as they appear to be published by fans of the game, so are no more reliable than a fansite. The second is difficult - while KBS is reliable, the source is in Korean so it's impossible for me (or anyone else) to tell whether there's significant coverage of Protoss, and what that coverage is. The third is even more difficult... I don't know of any instances where TV commentary has been used as a source (especially one to prove notability), and of course the language difficulty remains. Miremare 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

<-- Comment Take a look at this fictional protagonist from a six-year old series. Now take a look at the same article, less than one month ago. Change in any article is entirely possible. I bet if someone had held an AfD for that article in early August, people would have proposed the same reasons for deletion as being brought up here. David Fuchs (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Unless reliable sources can be found, Delete and Redirect 69.253.238.27 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not merge This article has all the usual problems of fancruft - unreferenced, overly detailed summary of a work's plot, in-universe, etc. Delete this cruft and watch the Starcraft article to make sure it isn't recreated there. --Phirazo 21:03, 9 September 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.