Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft)

Add links
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 Merge. While I'm sorely tempted to delete the lot as purely in-universe, lacking any notability, it looks to me like the lack of clear consensus is best served by merging and redirecting these articles into one general article with background info on these playable races. I don't really care about the nmame for such an article, I'll take one name suggested here. The merge may take a while, so please be patient. Fram 11:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarves (Warcraft)[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Keep Bad faith nomination. Editor is systematically tagging every article related to World of Warcraft, providing no justification other than a copy-paste of "non-notable", no discussion is offered. Yngvarr 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment striken I withdraw from the debate Yngvarr 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WoWwiki--victor falk 21:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't transwiki Wikipedia junk into WoWWiki. --Fandyllic 4:57 PM PDT 15 Oct 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not surprising it's junk, considering the different opinions of people if there should be any and what should be in them then. Since you're a WoWwiki admin, do you have any idea how we could make people contribute to good articles on wowwiki instead of bad ones on wikipedia?--victor falk 03:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WoWwiki is GFDL, so as long as the history is pasted into the target talk page, it can be copy/paste transwikied. It is also hosted by Wikia which is connected to the Wikimedia Foundation somehow or another. However, they already have an article on this topic, so it would be up to them on whether or not to merge this into what they have. --Phirazo 01:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why? Wikipedia 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) 11:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge somewhere. 132.205.44.5 22:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Keep – different 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Notable_topics Cogswobbletalk 23:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...just to clarify, I didn't mark "Keep" twice. I marked "Keep" once on the Night Elves AFD, then I noticed that there were all these other AFDs, and so I copied and pasted a (different) "Keep" comment to all the rest. When these were merged into one AFD, both of my "Keep" comments were included here. Cogswobbletalk 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
  • 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 (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Why delete the others? Melsaran (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because if you can't play as them, they're not notable. --SeizureDog 12:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can play as dwarves, tauren, etc in World of Warcraft. Melsaran (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well we can't really discuss things individually since someone merged everything with no discussion.Ridernyc 12:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That somebody being Melsaran who decided it would be more "convenient" to muck it all up this way. It almost smells of sabotage really. I'm irritated about this because we just closed a big afd for lumping too much together and were to renominate the articles individually.--SeizureDog 12:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See my reply to Goochelaar above for why WP:NOTINHERITED isn't applicable here. Melsaran (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 t•c 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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 [reliable] 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 t•c 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • There is not such thing as a subarticle. All articles on Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • Sigh... That's not what I meant. I meant that this is an article that has been split off the main article using summary style and is therefore commonly called a "subarticle", just like how History of Peru is a subarticle of Peru. Melsaran (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just joking :)... but Miremare is serious...--victor falk 03:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Why? Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia were to be deleted). Melsaran (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't think anyone realizes the extent that fictional universes are represented on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
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 (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    • 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]
There has been no breach of policy or procedure here; there is nothing in WP:N that says a notability tag must be added to the article before an AfD, and in my experience this rarely occurs anyway. The notability tag is simply one of the available options, along with asking the articles' editors or looking for sources yourself. The AfD itself is an opportunity (and perhaps a far more likely encouragement, than a template) for sources to be found - and considering that even now no one has come up with any sources for any of the articles nominated, it's pretty clear that these fail notability requirements. As for whether the nominator looked for sources, who knows? We may as well assume he did as no sources at all have come to light. It would be far easier to assume bad faith if you accompanied this accusation with sources, in a "he obviously didn't look for sources because I found these ones right away" kind of way... Miremare 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that there has been a breach of procedure. WP:N clearly states that notability tags are the first option. If notable sources cannot be found, then one should attempt to merge, as some here have suggested. Otherwise, as a third option, deletion should be considered. As for finding quick sources, a five-minute google search just now came up with two: this one from GameAmp and one from GameSpy. Both of these sites are independent, dependable, high quality sources for game information. Are you telling me that IAmSasori couldn't have taken the 5 minutes required to Google search these and either add them or provide them to the editors? I stand by my suspicion that this may be a bad faith nomination. --Jdcaust 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N does not say that a notability template must be placed on the article. It says you should look for sources yourself or do the other things it mentions. But this is really beside the point anyway; the AfD is not to debate whether notability tags should have been placed, it's to debate whether there is any notability, which is an altogether more important matter. As for whether the articles should be merged, that's something that should also be decided here - no one would expect the nominator to go around attempting to merge all these articles himself before taking them to AfD, as there would most likely be opposition amongst the articles' editors to do so, not to mention it being an absolutely massive task, and even more so for anyone who isn't intimately familiar with the subject. And of course it would leave him open to accusations of bad faith ("he tried to merge them and when we objected he nominated them for deletion to make a WP:POINT!" kind of thing). It's also not any individual editor's responsibility to go around cleaning up after other editors anyway, especially on this scale - AfD was absolutely the correct step. About the links you've provided above, the first one won't work for me, for some reason (even on the Google cache), but the GameSpy article has the following problems as a source: Firstly it's a series of in-universe pieces of fiction, not discussing the subjects in a significant way with real-world context, and secondly it's credited to Blizzard, the publishers of the game, and so is not independent. Also remember that gaming sites like Gamespy, ign etc., while reliable, report on practically anything to do with a game, especially when details are announced by publishers before release - thus they produce articles about cars in driving games, weapons in shooters, and similar. When such articles are created on Wikipedia they are be deleted fairly swiftly, despite the existence of these "reliable sources", because "what Wikipedia is not" still trumps notability. Miremare 00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright I went back and re-read Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • " I don't think anyone realizes the extent that fictional universes are represented on Wikipedia." 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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [1]. 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)[reply]
Yes, they are all descriptive articles about the game and that's half the problem. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to tell people about the minutiae of video games. That along with the complete lack of notability means they have no place here. Miremare 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these articles presents the back story of each race as an historical account. That is a plot summary. All that is left after you remove that is random trivia and minor elements of gameplay. --Phirazo 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the wikilawyering above about "proper procedure" and {{notability}} tags, at this point, the cat is out of the bag, and you aren't going to force a "Keep" or "No consensus" on a technicality. AfD is used to determine notability all the time without an article having {{notability}} tags.
  • Merge them all in Race in World of Warcraft. I see no reason to delete them, but centralising and trimming them can adress the problems of some editors. C mon 08:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jdcaust. It is about time these ridiculous AfD noms by a user who is clearly disrupting WP to make a point stop. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles do not violate any policy, are written well enough, the nominator gives no cause, and the majority are either keep or merge or move. The minority supports delete. Removing tags from all articles covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBLakes (talk • contribs) 08:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just had to restore all the AFD tags. Can people stop screwing around and just let the debate run it's course.Ridernyc 09:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think this should effect the debate but just thought I would mention that the user who removed the AFD's has been banned indefinitely for personally attacking an admin.12:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think these have enough real world significance to warrant their own article. -- lucasbfr talk 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment can some please cite examples. You can keep saying "this has plenty of real world signifigance" but without examples it's hard to take your side. Also cite examples for these articles, bringing up lists of of grievances about other things on wikipedia is not very helpful. I'm open to changing my mind but with out clear examples it's not going to happen. Ridernyc 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My opinion is that Warcraft being an extensive universe with a comprehensive lore (books, videogames, roleplaying games, the future movie), the different races inherit the notability of their core subjects (see Gangrel (World of Darkness), for an example based on an other While Wholf RPG). Practically, where should we put such information, if not in a separate article? Race in World of Warcraft obviously does not fit. -- lucasbfr talk 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's wrong with a merge into a Playable races in the Warcraft series list?--SeizureDog 16:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd be ok with it, but I fail to see the purpose: if separate articles are gamecruft, a big article merging all would still be gamecruft (see the AfD for the WoW classes) -- lucasbfr talk 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Races are more notable than classes as they are a major aspect of all of the games and not just one. Also, the playable races as a whole are more notable than they are individually, and thus have a much stronger case of being kept.--SeizureDog 08:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is not inherited. Where does inherited notability end? There are plenty of people who want to write an article on their WoW guild, are we going to allow that too? --Phirazo 00:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Notability of a parent entity does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. :) Why do people always see things in black or white? I think AfDs are sometimes greyish (one way or an other). (There's a huge bunch of articles about characters in WoW that I discovered from an outside source that I'm going to put in an AfD when these ones are done). -- lucasbfr talk 08:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not independently notable, no real-world notability. This is basically WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE material all around. Kesh 15:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge (with trimming) without real-world information, this is way too excessive to go into this much detail. -- Ned Scott 00:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are so non-notable (and I liked Warcraft — winning tip: don't blink). Warcraft is notable, the characters are not. List of Warcraft characters exists (and is way too detailed). --Jack Merridew 15:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep notable, verifiable, there will be many people who will want to read this and find it useful. These articles are well-organized and have a balanced coverage, as described in WP:FICT. Tim Q. Wells 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was this merged into one discussion? Although I voted "Keep" (and pasted the vote across all the discussions before it was merged), I recognize that some of these articles are likely more notable than others. Cogswobbletalk 00:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge a minimum... delete the rest I think there could be room for a small blurb about each race under the section "Races and classes" on the main article, but most of this should go. The Wow wiki and official sites are already linked from the main article if people want to do further reading.--Torchwood Who? 01:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I would suggest that, while each race does not need its own article on Wikipedia, an article on the primary races of the Warcraft universe would be useful provided it wasn't excessively large and not a direct copy-and-paste from the WoW webpage. I think this would be especially useful because this hypothetical Primary races in the Warcraft universe article could server a daughter article for all the Warcraft articles, unlike some of the WoW-specific articles. RobertM525 10:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons other keepers give above. About three or four years ago, I voted against (that is, for the deletion from Wikipedia) sub-articles in Wikipedia on things in the Warcraft universe, but in the time since, as articles on things in fictional universes have proliferated in Wikipedia, I have reached the conclusion that sub-articles on Warcraft are at least as notable, and indeed much more notable than many other sub-articles on fictional universes in Wikipedia. Also, there are lots of articles on fictional Warcraft characters; I would argue that the races are at least as notable, and perhaps more so, than the characters. —Lowellian (reply) 14:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Murloc. Keep all others. Murloc is the only article without any significant content. All other races are either playable, have been playable or play a significant role in Warcraft lore and gaming that can be substantiated with verifiable content.--ZayZayEM 02:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, most of the information came from in-game sources, which does not even come close to qualify as a "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Given Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, those detailed information about in-game material is inappropriate. --Voidvector 22:45, 22 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwarves_(Warcraft)&oldid=1146405291"