Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grafikm fr (talk | contribs) at 08:45, 17 October 2007 (Dwarves (Warcraft): keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:45, 17 October 2007 by Grafikm fr (talk | contribs) (Dwarves (Warcraft): keep)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Dwarves (Warcraft)

Note: several AFDs about Warcraft articles were started at the same time, Melsaran merged the debates for convenience.

See also:

Dwarves (Warcraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An article regarding each individual race of the Warcraft worlds would only appeal to the gamers themselves rather than real world context, failing WP:N. Non-players reading these articles would not have much if any interest in reading this article at all about an individual race in the games. IAmSasori 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - It is quite difficult to argue for the notability of the concept, or to find independent sources confirming it. And, as notability is not inherited, notable as Warcraft is, this does not make each aspect of the game notable. Isn't it better to list all the related pages (those about other Warcraft races) together? Goochelaar 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • For some reason, my vote/comment here disappeared when debates have been merged. I confirm my delete for all the articles, with the same motivation. Goochelaar 12:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The notability of the concept is established because World of Warcraft is notable, and this is detailed information about a certain aspect of World of Warcraft that was split off the main article when the section became too long. WP:NOTINHERITED refers to things such as "she's the daughter of a notable politician so she is also notable" while the daughter hasn't been covered by reliable sources. The daughter is a different subject than the politician; details on the daughter's life are not details on the politician's life. Merging the biography of the daughter with the article on the politician wouldn't be a plausible option, since it would become a coatrack (covering things about other, related subjects instead of covering the subject itself). That is not the case with this article, since it is detailed information on a certain aspect of World of Warcraft, and not on a subject related to World of Warcraft. This information could also be integrated into the main article, but it has been split off and became a subarticle. Melsaran (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, it looks like someone listed every since Warcraft race for deletion. Curiously, that editor (IAmSasori) has almost no edits other than a ton of Warcraft related AFDs, which makes me curious about their motives. Consequently, I'm going to cut-and-paste my Keep text to most of the rest of these AFDs:

  • So, is there "real-world information to prove their notability" for these articles? The guideline you mention specifically asks for this, even in the case of sub-articles born for technical reasons. I doubt very much that there are independent, reliable sources regarding races in Warcraft, but I'll be glad to change my opinion if they are shown. Goochelaar 07:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keepdifferent topics have different articles. This is merely detailed information on a (notable) fictional subject, and there's nothing wrong with that. 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. Melsaran (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • TransWiki all this belongs, is better covered and better suited to wowwiki. Non of this is encyclopedic at all. Ridernyc 00:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is it not encyclopedic? It's detailed information on a notable subject, split off in its own article. That you don't like fictional subjects doesn't mean that we shouldn't have articles on them. See my comment above for why moving it to WoWWiki is not needed. Melsaran (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The "Night Elf" race is a significant addition to the fantasy lexicon, somewhat akin to the Hobbit race. Where in WP:N does it say that an article about a fictional character/race/etc... has to appeal to people who are not fans of the fictional world? I think that this race meets the criteria listed here: Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction)#Notable_topics Cogswobbletalk 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All the races should have been rolled into one AfD, since the arguments are copy/pasted between them all. WP:N does say "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't see any sources independent of Blizzard, and remember that notability is not inherited. This is a plot summary and a game guide, with a side of trivia. --Phirazo 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it's not. It's simply detailed information on a notable subject (Warcraft). It has simply been split off into another article, because if the articles on all these characters were to be merged into one long list, it would become far too long. See WP:FICT: 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. And it's not a game guide, it's a game guide when it says "the best strategy to defeat boss X is (...)" or "if you're stuck at one point, you can continue by using (...)". It's also not trivia, trivia means "unimportant facts", and I consider notable games just as important as any other subject. Melsaran (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm actually trying to get that sentence removed from WP:FICT for precisely this reason. WP:SS is not a free pass on fancruft. Warcraft is notable, Warcraft races are not. At best, you could consider this a series on Warcraft races, which is not a notable topic either. Even considered as a section of a larger article, these overly long plot summaries have to go. --Phirazo 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)--
  • Frag - was the info spun off from a notable topic? Yes, but no casual reader would find this amount of detail helpful. All these articles are unsourced, even if sourced would rely exclusively on primary sources, and several just contain laundry lists. David Fuchs 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's okay if it relies only on primary sources, since Blizzard is the only one who can confirm information about the Dwarven race (anything from secondary sources would, by definition, be original research). And there's nothing wrong with a large amount of detail. Laundry lists can be cleaned up, by the way. Melsaran (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge most into a Playable races in the Warcraft series article And no, I don't mean List of Warcraft races, which needs to be cleaned up in a different manner. These articles aren't notable to stand alone, but taken into one article it can work. --SeizureDog 11:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep races that appeared as play-able in multiple games (Undead, Human, Orc, Night Elf), Delete others. User:Krator (t c) 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as this article does not provide context, analysis or history of the development of the game. In fact this article does not provide any useful content as it comprises entirely of game guide and plot or character summary. This is Fancruft at its worst; there are no footnotes to distinguish primary sources from synthesis, and more damningly, there are no secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of these fictional characters.--Gavin Collins 12:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Context, analysis and history of the development of the game are provided in the main article on Warcraft. This is a sub-article for detailed information on the series that was forked out of the main article because the section became too long. Per WP:FICT, it should be treated as a section of the main article. Are you going to delete the Gameplay section in the article on Poker because it doesn't provide any real-world context? Also, it is not a game guide, as I pointed out above: it's a game guide when it says "the best strategy to defeat boss X is (...)" or "if you're stuck at one point, you can continue by using (...)". Secondary sources are not necessary, since Blizzard (a primary source) is the only one who can confirm information about the Dwarven race (anything from secondary sources would, by definition, be original research). Melsaran (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for merging it, despite the fact that the reason why the last nomination failed was because they were merged in the first place. Notability is not inherited, therefore separating the articles into sub-articles would not make abide by WP:N. IAmSasori 13:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to Goochelaar above for why WP:NOTINHERITED isn't applicable here. Melsaran (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly the type of situation that WP:NOTINHERITED applies to, per the example in the essay. Radio show : radio station :: elements of World of Warcraft :: World of Warcraft. Can the radio show be notable on its own? Sure, if enough independent reliable sources can be found. But it isn't automatically notable just because it's a part of something that is. shoy 13:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone looking for information about the radio station would want to know what programmes are broadcast by that radio station, and not detailed information on the background of the program, because it isn't directly relevant to the radio station. However, reputation is an aspect of World of Warcraft, and not a "parent" of World of Warcraft. That's why there is detailed information on reputation in the main article at World of Warcraft#Reputation. However, since this became too long, it was forked out into a larger sub-article with summary style, which shouldn't have to conform to independent notability standards per WP:FICT: 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. Melsaran (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:FICT is not a "license to kill". All the article really needs to say about reputation can be said in the first few sentences of the article. We don't need a discussion of how the reputation system works, that gets into game guide material. shoy 15:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course we do. There's nothing wrong with detailed information, as long as it's verifiable and on a notable subject. We don't "need" articles on a village somewhere in the US with 200 inhabitants either, but that's not a reason for deletion. Melsaran (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all (+ trim?) into one big article per User:SeizureDog. Surely, there must be some secondary sources about these "races" as a whole (non-player opinion). – sgeureka 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Those secondary sources would not be reliable. The Warcraft Dwarves, for example, are a Warcraft race and do not exist in real life. Blizzard created them, and as such, Blizzard is the only one who can confirm information about the Warcraft Dwarves. If a secondary source would write something about the Dwarves, then they either have that information from Blizzard (which makes it an indirect source, which is useless when the primary source is also available), or they made that information up themselves (so it would be speculation or original research). Melsaran (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I meant secondary sources for reception, which also establish notability for the group. (Obviously, you'd be going in a vicious circle if you don't allow primary sources for their primary-ness, but then go the other way and say that secondary sources can't be used because they're not reliable.) But as I said, I'm not familiar with this game beyond knowing of its existance and its "cult" status. – sgeureka 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Melsaran, what do you mean? There may be independent sources about fictional subjects! They are called reviews, critical studies, analyses, psychological interpretations, essays... Following your reasoning, whoever ever wrote anything about the character of Hamlet either made it up or copied it from Shakespeare. It is conceivable that some independent, reliable author wrote something about Warcraft dwarves (say, to compare them with dwarves in Tolkien's work or in other fantasy worlds; or to express an opinion about their playabilty, or their physical depiction, whatever). I ignore such sources, but I'd be glad to know them and change my opinion about these articles. As for your interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED, I find it a bit too wide. If we keep splitting sub-subjects, we might have articles about every minor character in every short story by, say, Stephen King. I believe we have to stop somewhere: if the correct point where one stops is before or after the articles we are discussing will be decided by the Wikipedians' consensus. Happy editing, Goochelaar 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Dwarves exist outside of Warcraft games. In fact, half the races in the list exist outside of Warcraft games. It is insignificant to non-players to read an article exclusive to one game about something that exists in many games. IAmSasori 14:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Ehm, that last point is not really relevant, since this article is explicitly titled Dwarves (Warcraft) and there is also an article about Dwarves in general. Melsaran (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
          • You have stated that Blizzard created them, when other forms of them exist.
          • A non-player would not have any interest in the Dwarves of Warcraft as much as they would general dwarves. IAmSasori 14:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I am not sure this is the right point to make. Of course dwarves (and elves etc.) exist in other fantasy worlds. But the insignificance of Warcraft dwarves to non-players is only one of the reasons to delete articles like this one, and borders WP:IDONTLIKEIT. After all, Dickson, Oklahoma is insignificant to most human beings who never will get within 1000 kilometres from it, and even Tablature is insignificant to people not playing a musical instrument. I'd stay more close to the request for independent, reliable sources. Goochelaar 14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all these fail notability requirements per WP:FICT, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. These in-universe articles are all clearly written for World of Warcraft players and Misplaced Pages isn't a game guide. There's no real world context and never likely to be any. If the keepers think these are notable in the real world they should prove it rather than just insist it. Miremare 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, they're not independently notable in the real world, since they're subarticles that were forked out of the main article (World of Warcraft) that should be treated as sections of that article rather than as separate articles, per WP:FICT. That they're "in-universe" is something that can be fixed and doesn't merit deletion. They're not written for World of Warcraft players only, am I going to say "delete Union, Connecticut since it's written for inhabitants of that village only"? Also, it's not written as a game guide, as I pointed out above: it's a game guide when it says "the best strategy to defeat boss X is (...)" or "if you're stuck at one point, you can continue by using (...)". This article merely provides information. Melsaran (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There is not such thing as a subarticle. All articles on Misplaced Pages are create equal, with the right to pursue happiness, liberty and featured article status, and to slily imply that there is such a thing as an Unterartikel is to the promote the wikiracist agenda of the cabal who seeks to undermine and corrupt the... --victor falk 19:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just joking :)... but Miremare is serious...--victor falk 03:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact remains that there is no special treatment or allowances for so-called "sub-articles". Of course articles can be split for size reasons, but not if the resultant new article would prove to be non-notable. From WP:FICT: "If the article becomes too long and a split would create a sub-article on a subject that is not individually notable, then the content should be trimmed." Miremare 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki all to WoWWiki and then smerge the contents to an article like Races in World of Warcraft. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 16 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? Also note that transwiki is only possible for Wikimedia wikis, adn not for Wikias. This could only be moved manually, and would then be a violation of the GFDL (if the article on Misplaced Pages were to be deleted). Melsaran (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't think anyone realizes the extent that fictional universes are represented on Misplaced Pages. We can argue all day about whether or not it is appropriate to include information about a fictional universe on wikipedia. However, precident has been set by many, many fictional universes that have exhaustive fictional information on here. Examples include tabletop games Warhammer and Warhammer 40000 where both universes have numberless articles dedicated to their history, races, and significant events. Examples from video games include the Halo Universe and the Elder Scrolls games, with many, many articles about characters, history, and places. Examples from movies include Star Wars which has articles dedicated to nearly each and every made-up obscure character, piece of equipment, and heck, even creature in the fictional universe. I haven't editted any of these pages and have only a passing interest in the game, which is where I came to see the deletion nomination in particular. However, if you're going to start deleting everything about fictional universes, then you have a long way to go and have to delete everything concerning the universes I mentioned above. Considering that IAmSasori has only focused on World of Warcraft makes me question why this was begun in the first place. If you start here, you're starting down a slippery slope that could lead to huge controversy all over Misplaced Pages. Considering the precedent already set by other fictional universes being kept, it would be totally inconsistent and unfair to the World of Warcraft editors to delete any and all pages related to its universe. Further, considering that IAmSasori made this nomination on WP:N I think the discussion can stop there. All of this is incredibly noteworthy if you consider that this game is played by over eight million players world wide. I can guarantee that there are far fewer people searching for information on featured articles Ailanthus altissima and Belarusian Republican Youth Union, yet no one nominates them for deletion. This nomination fails in regards to the criteria set forth in both WP:N and thus, WP:Deletion. --Jdcaust 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel I should point out some things: A) Numerous books to web articles have been written on the Halo universe (although unfortunately the universe article itself doesn't reflect it as such.) B) There is no precedent as such on wikipedia. Consensus can change, although there are of course certain practices and the policies it adheres to. "All of this is incredibly noteworthy if you consider that this game is played by over eight million players world wide." David Fuchs 20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And yet, David, you only discuss the Halo universe. Would you advocate deletion of articles about the Star Wars universe such as List of Star Wars creatures or Yuuzhan Vong which are almost decidedly less noteworthy that any of the WoW pages. What about Eldar or Teclis from the Warhammer pages. Besides, consensus might change, but referring you to WP:Deletion, these discussion are not a head count. Consensus doesn't decide what should and should not be deleted. Administrators do based on the policies and the arguments presented here. --Jdcaust 21:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
List of Star Wars creatures actually cites books. Most of the articles in the AFD cite either the game itself or Blizzard's website exclusively. shoy 02:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment that the nominator has only focused on WoW articles is irrelevant to the articles themselves and their lack of demonstrated notability. As for all the other fictional articles you mention, some may well be able to prove notability, but have you considered the fact that many of them may be unsuitable for Misplaced Pages too? The fact that they're here doesn't mean they should be. But anyway, other articles are also irrelevant to this AfD; we're only discussing the ones listed at the top of this page. As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages covers notable subjects only, and the criteria for establishing notability are very clear: significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Miremare 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And the criteria for deletion regarding notability is also very clear: each article should be tagged for notability first so that the editors may bring them up to notability criteria. If after a reasonable amount of time has been given to the editors, the articles are still not following notability criteria, then the article should be nominated for deletion. The editors of all of the World of Warcraft articles have not been given this opportunity. This would require a great deal of work on the part of the nominator, which is why the criteria requires this in the first place. Deletion is a last resort, not the first action. --Jdcaust 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So, are there sources then? Who's to say the nominator didn't search for sources before the AfD anyway? Notability, and therefore the lack of sources, is what we're here to discuss. If someone comes up with some - fine. All they have to do is post the links, but no one has. Do you have sources? Miremare 21:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't have sources on the topics and I don't have any experience in them. Leave that to the editors of these pages. However, instead of everyone here arbitrarily deciding something should be deleted, the editors of these pages should be given the chance to find notable sources. I don't know whether IAmSasori did or did not try and find notable sources. He hasn't posted anything except the nomination and that dwarves exist. He never even mentioned that as his criteria. His criteria was that these articles have no interest to non-players (which is not true, since I'm a non-player and I'm only involved in this because I was interested). Looking through his history, I'm inclined to believe he did not look for sources. All of his contributions save four came from the two days before he posted this nomination for deletion. All of those were tagging these articles for deletion and posting here. Are you saying that just because none of us know of any notable sources, it should be deleted? Shouldn't we follow Misplaced Pages's regular channel for this before a ton of work on 17 different articles is deleted? If we all want to sit here and quote WP rules and criteria, then shouldn't we at least follow it from the beginning? None of these articles were ever tagged for notability. Go look in their history, if its not too much trouble. Until they are tagged for this and the editors have been given a chance to respond, none of these should be deleted. Can you honestly tell me that this follows the proper protocols? Please re-read WP:Notability and WP:Deletion. You'll see that this isn't the proper way this is supposed to be decided. --Jdcaust 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Alright I went back and re-read Misplaced Pages's criteria for deletion and found yet another reason to leave these pages alone. From WP:Deletion:

      Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, and unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons. In the normal operations of Misplaced Pages, approximately five thousand pages are deleted each day through the processes outlined below.

      The nomination above deals with WP:N which is not a criteria for deletion. Under WP:N the proper channel to go through would be for IAmSasori to first go through and tag each of these articles for notability, challenging the editors at each page to find good reliable sources to back up the notability of the article. If an individual article's editors cannot reliably back up the article's notability, ONLY then should the article be nominated for deletion. That would also require going through that process with each and every article, instead of sweepingly removing them all at once like this nomination is trying to do. If IAmSasori wants to see these deleted, he should go through the proper channels first and do the grunt work in each and every one of these. After reading all these criteria, I am concerned that this really is a bad faith nomination, although I wanted to assume good faith with my original post. It just hard to believe someone is being constructive and a helpful editor when 95% contributions are WoW nominations for deletion --Jdcaust 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Further, quoting from WP:N, "Notability guidelines do not directly limit the content of the article concerned...The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." Thus, one cannot say that because the articles contain fictional information, they are not notable. --Jdcaust 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • " I don't think anyone realizes the extent that fictional universes are represented on Misplaced Pages." I do. I remember when there was an article for every single episode of Naruto, which has over 200 episodes. (They were later redirected to the List of Naruto episodes, but are still there in the history) Just because other articles are as fancrufty as this series is is not a reason to keep them. Misplaced Pages articles on fiction do tend towards cruft, but this is an unfortunate situation, and it doesn't mean we can set aside WP:NOT#PLOT because of it. --Phirazo 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This actually has nothing to do with WP:NOT#PLOT although all those Naruto episodes do. Read the articles, all 17 are descriptive articles about the game, aspects of the game, or background information. Yes, they need a ton of work. Yes, they need sources. However, outright deleting things is not the proper channel or protocol in determining whether or not something is notable. Re-read WP:N. These articles were brought up for deletion for this reason. The proper protocol is to tag each one for notability, give the authors a chance to find sources and prove notability, then on a case-by-case basis, decide whether or not they should be deleted on this. Until all other options have been explored, deletion should not be considered. Too many editors have put work into those articles to see them all wiped out because one guy who's entire contribution history is nominating these for deletion thinks they should be gone. Heck, I'm only passionate about this because I want to see wikipedia protocol followed. I never ever read these articles until today. --Jdcaust 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If you guys want, I'll do all the dang tagging to give these guys a shot. If they don't do their jobs in finding sources, then so be it. Just follow the proper protocols! --Jdcaust 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why I voted transwiki, not delete. But wikipedia cannot be some kind of global wiki for all the internet, if so we might as well drop all these WP:SOMEPOLICIES and let people write anything they damn want. I respect the effort and the dedication of the editors who wrote those articles. That's why today, I made my very first contribution to WoWwiki ever: . I'd gladly help to transwiki more, but since I haven't played that game since Warcraft 2, I feel I'm not as up to the task as others.--victor falk 04:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Categories: