Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft (3rd nomination)

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grafikm fr (talk | contribs) at 08:43, 17 October 2007 (→Classes in World of Warcraft: strong keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:43, 17 October 2007 by Grafikm fr (talk | contribs) (→Classes in World of Warcraft: strong keep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Classes in World of Warcraft

AfDs for this article:

Pure and simple: game cruft.

Only players of World of Warcraft would find this information usable. Per WP:N, it does not have any significance outside of World of Warcraft and its players. IAmSasori 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment On the heels of the RuneScape AfD sequence, and on the still-warm corpse of the original AfD comes another group of nominations from an editor who has five minor edits a month prior to these noms. I make no apologies for sounding cynical, however, I am still getting that feeling that someone is still trying to make a point. I guess I'd feel a little more confident in this whole series of AfDs if they were nominated by an editor who has a little bit more of an active history. I do disclose a conflict-of-interest, as I am a contributor to several of these. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment stricken Withdrawn Yngvarr 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Isn't this supposed to be called Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft (third nomination)? I hope the nominator read the two other discussions before nominating this article. I fear the rationale for deletion here is a bit concise. -- lucasbfr 06:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment This is a month and 4 days after the last AfD closed. What has changed since then to warrant this article being deleted? Raoul 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: What's wrong with the reason given for deletion? There are no reliable sources to assert notability in the real world. (Disclosure: I have not edited this article at all). shoy 12:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Vote struck for now. shoy 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This can be (and is) reliably sourced to the game documentation, Blizzard's official website, and reasonably trustworthy sites made by players. "Cruft" is not a reason to delete this, and boils down to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The information here is extensive enough that it should not be merged into the article in chief on World of Warcraft. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

From WikiProject Video Games article guidelines:

"A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture."

"Content that may be moved to gaming wikis:

Lists of statistics, items, or other minutiae"

In short, Misplaced Pages is not a game guide. shoy 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unstriking some comments. Some sections need a sledgehammer taken to them for getting too much into gameplay mechanics. It should be noted as well that a wiki is generally not a reliable source. shoy 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per Smerdis. If it can only be sourced from primary or unreliable sources, then that's a pretty good indication we should not have an article. Per policy we are supposed to work from reliable secondary sources and not be a directory or just a collection of information - sure we can use primary sources sometimes, but not if they are all that exist. I tend to draw a distinction between facts and knowledge; this is facts not knowledge. Cruftbane 16:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete If there is not already one someone needs to make a WOW wiki, that would be where this stuff belongs.Ridernyc 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Misplaced Pages is perfectly suited to have an article (and detailed subarticles) on World of Warcraft. Do you want to move all in-depth information on history to the history Wikia? Melsaran (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Millions of books have specifically been written about history. Millions of books have not been specifically written about "classes in World of Warcraft". shoy 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    - You're oversimplifying to prove your point. Comparing "classes in World of Warcraft" to "history" is like comparing apples to orange plantations. Let's level the playing field: The article Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya is currently featured in the "Did You Know..." section of the main page. Searching for "Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya" in Google yields 10 results. On the other hand, searching for Medivh warcraft yields 1,590,000 results. I think it's safe to say that "millions of books" have not been written about Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya, or even that anyone without an interest in obscure entomological textbooks written in Bengali cares about who he was. Meanwhile, there seems to be a significant amount of interest in Medivh, a character from World of Warcraft. It's looking more and more like your various reasons for supporting these AfDs can all be boiled down to a heaping helping of WP:IDONTLIKEIT topped with WP:WHOCARES. -Rhrad 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the last discussion was only about a month ago. The game is notable enough that there will be an interest inthis kind of material and we shouldn't be exclusive of our readers and potential editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep, for the same reasons as last time. The article does not violate WP:NOT. The volume of information on the subject and the amount of press coverage suggests, to me at least, that the topic is notable. Primary sources are reliable in this sort of article, and I really can't understand Cruftbane's opinion that the article should be removed because it is all facts. It is true that it has no real world relevance outside of the subject and the people who would be interested in it, but that is true of any article from Google to water. My reasons may seem a bit concise and poorly argued, but having participated in the two previous deletion discussions I cannot be bothered to go over all of it again, so you can look in those topics for clearer arguments. Raoul 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This looks like another spin at the AfD roulette wheel. I found persusasive looking at how many articles needed to link here and also considering that somewhere upwards of 8 million people play/have-played as these classes. --Gwern (contribs) 17:53 15 October 2007 (GMT)

It still fails WP:N, as despite that 8 million players are within these classes, they are still only notable to World of Warcraft players. Having survived the previous AfDs does not justify its survival in this one. IAmSasori 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Close Nuisance nom way too soon after the last one. Artw 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki to WoWwiki and redirect to Warcraft. I feel that it would be better for all parties if game help and in-universe articles were found there, and that it would improve the encyclopedic quality of WoW articles on wikipedia.--victor falk 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Misplaced Pages is perfectly suited to have an article (and detailed subarticles) on World of Warcraft. Do you want to move all in-depth information on history to the history Wikia? Melsaran (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)--
Delete as this is clearly a plot or character summary. For clear guidance on this issue, see the Video games guidelines which state that articles "should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia". --Gavin Collins 09:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- The main article on World of Warcraft gives information about the real-world influence of the subject, this article is merely a "section" of the World of Warcraft article. It has been split off because the section got too long, and as WP:FICT states: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Saying that every section should provide real-world context is unrealistic, because then we should remove the #Gameplay section from the Poker article or the strategy and tactics section from the Chess article. Melsaran (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment The main article provides real world influence of the game, but this article is of a completely different nature. Whereas Poker Gameplay provides context, analysis and a history of the development of the game, this article does not provide any useful content as it comprises entirely of game guide and plot or character summary. The video guidlines go on to state "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. This guideline in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages is not a game guide." This article contravenes these guidelines. Also there are insufficient footnotes to demonstrate the notability of these fictional characters.--Gavin Collins 12:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, very much so overly detailed game guide information. Not notable otherwise.--SeizureDog 11:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Misplaced Pages isn't a game guide. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep: there is no reason to delete this and not the individual articles for D&D classes. It might be overly long, but certainly if the races of world of warcraft are included so should the classes. C mon 08:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. We went through it several times, each time with "keep" result. And this nomination by a clearly disruptive user should probably not change much. -- Grafikm 08:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)