Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Aspect

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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Aspect

This article is poorly sourced, unnotable fancruft with the majority comprising of plot summaries.

All the sources besides one were referenced from a Warcraft site Blizzplanet alone. The one source that isn't is referenced to a Wiki, which is not a suitable source to be used in the article.

Along with that, there are no third party sources to indicate its notability to the real world, implying that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would most likely have no interest in reading this article.

It appears to be rich in gamecruft which has a tendency to attract original research, furthering itself from getting proper from the right locations.

The article is entirely comprised of plot summaries, something Wikipedia is not and is generally not acceptable.

Finally, a precedent could be established that four of the article's five sections have been nominated for Articles for deletion and resulted as Delete:

Only Alexstrasza remains without having an individual article in the first place, and instead redirected to List of Warcraft characters. IAmSasori (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per precedent. Keeper | 76 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per precedent, topic is better covered at WoWWiki. --Stormie (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominators assessment of the notability and game-guide nature of this article, and support its deletion. I (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've played WoW, I'd say it's not even notable in-game unless you are into lore. --Voidvector (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no out-of-universe perspective. I've removed the WOWwiki citation. Pagra shtak 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You know what makes me annoyed about this. Why do you even keep a articles for request if you are just going to delete them. That's a waste of time. I pick what articles I create carefully, and try only creating ones out of article for requests, but they all get deleted anyway. It getting deleted doesn't frustrate me, because this is how wikipedia works. However, I pick one under article for requests, I triple check to make sure it hasn't been deleted before, I Create it and it still get's deleted.... --businessman332211 (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that I wasn't even notified of this afd. Which, is suppose to be standard practice (inform the original creator or any heavy heavy contributors of something like this. --businessman332211 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While working on AfC backlog is commendable, one should make sure that the requested article is an article that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Being requested does not guaruntee this. And yes, it's usually considered good form to notify the original author, but it is by no means a requirement. I (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like it'll end up being deleted. I put a bit of time into this. I guess it'll be a learning experience. Next time I will double check, and if I create a fictional article, I will write it differently. --businessman332211 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep - I vote keep. As the original author I am willing to put in whatever time is necessary to restructure the article to make it fall within policy if it does not already. I also vote keep because of the fact that the nominator has claimed there are hundreds he wants to nominate, and by looking at his history, i seems like a crusade to delete articles. Which I don't agree with. I believe article deletions should be few and far between and (based on the guidelines) only as a last resort (unless something is blantantly not proper). --businessman332211 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps it does need a delete. I do not agree with

The user didn't notify me
The user is mass targeting a large number of articles for deletion

But those are beside the point. The fact of the matters are

I was just beginning when I created this article, so I didn't interpet policy as well as I did today.
The article really isn't notable
and even if someone tried to rewrite it out of an in-universe perspective or with real world references, there is just not enough out there to form something solid. --businessman332211 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.