Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thottbot
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 keep. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thottbot
Fails WP:NOTE and WP:SOURCE, and is somewhat WP:SPAM. This World of Warcraft article is also a stub. Fangz of Blood 21:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Unless it can assert a level of notability per reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Looks not notable at first, but a Google scholar search suggests otherwise: [1] finding several articles by established scholars. User:Krator (t c) 11:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per User:Krator, who isn't trying to say that the subject brings up a whole lot of hits on Google, but rather that the subject has been cited in scholarly, peer-reviewed articles (and indeed, some of these ought to be referenced in the article). Watchsmart (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Don't see how this can be deleted on notability concerns, as it is or was the definitive database for all things World of Warcraft. For years, players are/were regularly referred to the site when asking questions in-game about specific quests or items. The article certainly may need more references or sources, but as far as being non-notable? No. --Slordak (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- This article has no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject: the definition of notability for Wikipedia. Is it notable within the World of Warcraft? Certainly possible. Is it notable outside said fictional world? The article has no evidence, failing WP:N. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Krator's provided solid scholarly references to the article subject, and the whole primary source/secondary source thing is a contentious area of otherwise settled verifiability policy. Orphic (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It's not clear to me whether the scholarly articles found by Krator contain anything more than very brief mention of Thottbot. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:07, 16 December 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.
