Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlet Crusade

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. WP:NOT#GUIDE wins in the absence of third party sources to establish independent out-of-game notability. The author(s) are directed to www.wowwiki.com as an alternative outlet. — Coren ^(talk) 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scarlet Crusade

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

No third-party sources, unnotable to non-Warcraft players, and is gamecruft with plot summaries.

There is only one source on this article, which is to a Warcraft-related book. That with no independent third-party sources, it is most likely not notable to non-players and the real world.

It also contains gamecruft, which is a likely attractor of original research, adding more of unsourced material to the article.

There are plot summaries in this article, something Wikipedia is not and should not have. IAmSasori 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 22:58, 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 01:51, 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

This argument is WP:HARMLESS, and therefore irrelevant. User:Krator (t c) 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant? I think not. It seems like a very good argument, much better than yours.--Neverpitch 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. This page contains information that is excessively detailed, and out of proportion with the notability of the topic of World of Warcraft. User:Krator (t c) 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Then don't read it. Simple as that. No rational reason given to delete yet.--Neverpitch 02:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep and merge to Warcraft universe. The Scarlet Crusade is a major feature of the game, being the antagonist in a number of plot threads. The source given certainly indicates notability within the scope of the game, but there's not enough external notability to justify more than a redirect to a larger article that mentions the S.C. in passing. -Harmil 15:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be just a "Merge" then, not a "Keep and merge". Powers ^T 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Article asserts no notability, doesn't have any references from reliable sources, provides no critical commentary, and has no hope of any showing up. Judgesurreal777 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Neverpitch and Harmil are correct on all points above. Rray 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to let this article get deleted. It's notable, as Harmil has asserted. IronCrow 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Neverpitch has used several essays to justify keeping it, while those in favor of deletion have used actual wikipedia policies. I would suggest searching for some actual policy to argue in the articles favor, and if you cant, perhaps you will agree its not notable afterall. Judgesurreal777 23:06, 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.", in this case adding sources tag would be appropriate. Edward321 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Lack of reliable secondary sources means that this fictional organisation is not notable outside of the Warcraft canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:45, 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.