Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (Warcraft)

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. Neil ☎ 09:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troll (Warcraft)

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

Entirely in-universe, except for a laundry list of random appearances in the games. Only sources are two from 'warcraftrealms.com'. Quite a bit of the article is recited plot summary. Any relevant information could be merged to a more important article, and taken together, fails WP:FICT. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What I'd like to do is take this, and all the major races, trim them down into a single article, similar to what was done with List of major cities in World of Warcraft. However, it's a major undertaking, and the previous example I've given is also up for deletion, I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to expand the energy, since the bias appears to be in favor of deletion. I realize that any article may be deleted (or debated for) at any time, but rather than making an article in the hopes of survival, would I be simply forestalling the inevitable to occur five days from now? Rather than support or oppose deletion, I'll throw in my ideas for merging, and see what the general opinion is. Yngvarr —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because an article has been deleted doesn't mean you can't work on it in userspace. Ask any admin (me included) to grab a revision, and I'm sure they'd be happy to do it. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge & Delete: This article can be trimmed down and whats left can be merged to Warcraft universe, and the article deleted. - Rjd0060 17:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable, people want to read/write this stuff... Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --W.marsh 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable, yes... but that doesn't make something notable per WP:FICT. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it's also not an indiscriminant collection of info, either. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We can cover this in an encyclopedic manner... there's no reason not to, except to provide less encyclopedic information to certain readers. I don't feel that's a good thing. --W.marsh 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedic manner includes in an out-of-universe manner relying on unrelated, reliable, fact-checked sources. Do those sources exist? If not, we cannot cover a subject in an encyclopedic manner, only in an unencyclopedic manner using original research (I played the game and found that...). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to WikiWoW--Victor falk 20:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't transwiki Wikipedia junk into WoWWiki. --Fandyllic 5:03 PM PDT 15 Oct 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - An extensive article already exists at WoW Wiki, so there's no need to transwiki this anywhere. Pure in-universe article, fails WP:FICT. -- Kesh 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, how many readers browsing Warcraft articles on Wikipedia are likely to immediately check this WoW Wiki for information not on Wikipedia? If I write a detailed article about Bush on my web blog, does that mean we can delete the Bush article as redundant? — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not where you put in-game information. A common alternative is to transwiki specialized articles to wikis that deal with that speciality. In this case, that would be a major WoW wiki. There was a proposal on the Village Pump to help point people to those specialized wikis, but I don't know what became of it. Your blog comment is rather off the mark, I'm afraid. -- Kesh 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Same concept applies. If the information isn't likely to be found by readers, then it's not particularly relevant. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
        • And that's not a criteria for keeping an article. -- Kesh 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, I didn't say that the article should be kept necessarily. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_Warcraft_humanoid_races which is a list of trimmed down version of most races in WoW.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Significant trim and keep. This does merit a page, but not the cruft on it as it currently stands. Luatha 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I will disagree with Lenticel's choice of redirect. However, this is what I am envisioning, altho it's merely a skeleton. I would like to get some discussion on this particular idea, before I go too much further. Yngvarr 22:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would a casual reader care about their 'abilities', especially as they aren't explained? David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comments striken I withdraw from the debate. I'll strike my comments on the rest of the noms, as well. Yngvarr 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think its funny (and very Wikipedia) that nearly all the articles pertaining to the Warcraft versions of fantasy races had been Afd'd, but more people have chosen Troll of all topics to way in on. Says something about who looks at what articles... trolls worrying about trolls? Also, someone mentioned in another Afd discussion that transwiki only works for Wikimedia Foundation wikis. WoWWiki is a Wikia.com wiki which is historically tied to Wikimedia, but not legally, I believe. --Fandyllic 5:12 PM PDT 15 Oct 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• merge, redirect or greatly clean up and seek some real-world information. It's reasonable that we'll have some coverage on things like, what is a Troll in Warcraft, but this amount of game/plot detail is excessive on it's own. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, might merit a brief mention in an article concerning treatment of trolls as a fictional creature in general, but certainly not a full article. I'm sure that WoWWiki already has plenty of material on the WoW races, rendering a transwiki unnecessary and probably unwanted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per my arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft). I'm not going to repeat them here again; this page could better have been added to the existing AFD (which includes many other Warcraft-related articles). Melsaran (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-players would have no interest whatsoever in the trolls of an online game. The only two sources on the page, both coming from the same location, makes it fail WP:N also, furthering the reason to delete. IAmSasori 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as no secondary sources to demonstrate notabiltiy. --Gavin Collins 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per what I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft). Tim Q. Wells 00:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete my argumnents can be found on the related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft)--Torchwood Who? 01:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to List of Warcraft humanoid races. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Percy Snoodle 10:32, 19 October 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.