Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination)

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 12:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warcraft characters[edit]

With the previous Article for Deletion, the closing admin has stated to "Clean [List of Warcraft characters article] up, or I reckon the next discussion will be a delete." So far, there has been no improvements whatsoever on the issues mentioned in the previous AfD. The only thing that was successfully done was to barely thin-out the content, despite sourcing being the serious issue.

Along with the previously mentioned unnotable cruft, this article also has serious issues with having absolutely no sources whatsoever and has been comprised pretty much entirely of plot summaries.

With an article of such a size and topic (it is currently 106KB, only losing 21KB from the previous AfD), having sources is pretty much required. However, not only are there no sources, there are no third-party sources either to establish any notability it has to the real world. With this, anyone who does not play nor read the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article.

The article appears to be enormously composed of cruft which has a tendency to attract original research, something unwelcome to Wikipedia.

Also, nearly if not all characters on this list has plot summaries regarding them, which is what Wikipedia is not and is generally not acceptable.

I would prefer that participants of this AfD avoid using the argument that other stuff exists as a lot have previously argued, as the articles they have used for examples may also not be noteworthy and deserving of an AfD and should not be used as a precedent. Also, another argument to avoid is to point out that Warcraft is notable, making this article notable. However, notability is not inherited, and the article should meet the requirements to instate its own notability rather than relying on Warcraft's notability.

Almost a month has passed since the closing of the previous Article for Deletion with a declaration of having to clean up and abide by notability guidelines, yet nothing has been done to add sources to indicate its notability. With this, it can be assumed that without another Articles for deletion nomination, the article would have continued to remain at such a poor, unacceptable state. IAmSasori (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —IAmSasori (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has had a chance to assert any kind of notability, and if none can be asserted, its just plot repetition and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft articles have been under constant siege since the ending of the last AfD, which kinda limits the manpower and morale available, which in turn weakens the deduction that absence of proof equals proof of abscence. This is, however, irrelevant: the previous AfD ended less than one month ago. I have never seen the line drawn low enough to allow single-article AfD's to be repeated that fast, and request an immediate speedy close. --Kizor (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While it has ended less than a month ago, it was definitely started more than a month ago, and that prevents it from being seen as "quickly" repeated. IAmSasori (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to note that the closing admin of the previous AfD Haemo has stated that he "would strongly suggest that users work on this aspect, and pronto, because articles cannot persist indefinitely on such a basis." I'm sure that nearly a month is more time than "pronto," suggesting this renomination should remain open. IAmSasori (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a game guide, There is only so much that can be said about the Warcraft game that is of real encyclopedic relevance to this universe. This article, and the others that are entirely about trivia of in-game experience cannot achieve encyclopedic notability. There is a Warcraft wiki it's exactly the place that articles like this one belong. Those that remain in an encyclopedia have to have connection, meaning, analysis and context to *this* world running throughout them. This has, and can have, none because the topic has no real world relevance. Other aspects of the Warcraft games *do* have real world relvance, but this does not, and ought to be deleted from here (and recreated on the warcraft wiki if it doesn't exist there, which I very much doubt). Wikipedia is not a Warcraft wiki mirrorsite. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reason listed in nomination. We were told a month ago that all the issues with the article could be fixed within an hour. A ton of edits have been made to the article since then, yet it still fails all core policies. Ridernyc (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start fresh, I'm sure a list of Warcraft characters can be done well but it would be best to start from scratch, rather than work off this. A big recommendation would be to establish more stringent guidelines for inclusion in the list, focusing on only the most major characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no improvement made to the problems raised in the previous AfD (although there has been plenty of polishing of the cruft). Take it to WoWWiki, there's no reliably sourced real-world info here, just a lot of in-game cruft. --Stormie (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominee. Weirdy Talk 09:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to enforce style guidelines, go to wowwiki like I do for detailed info. Because it just doesn't follow consensus of style on Wikipedia for lists, right now, most of the article fits Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. If you want to keep it, should be in these formats like List_of_notable_San_Diegans, List of computer scientists, List_of_operating_systems, List of star trek characters. "List of blah blah" are acceptable in Wikipedia so long the content in them is brief and consistent. I suggest the editors of this article review style guidelines to save from imminent deletion and remember save a copy. See WP:LISTV (non-official), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) (official) to reach acceptable consensus. I suggest also maybe use footnotes to cut down on the repetition the references to books, games, etc that adds to the problems of article size. - 6etonyourfeet ^(talk?) 09:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is, in my opinion, a cheap nom. It is not fair to have a 2nd AfD so soon (twice in 5 weeks). Insufficient time has been allowed for the editors involved to improve the article per WP:HEY. (It probably should be deleted as cruft, but I won't close this AfD.) Bearian 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if even one source had been added I would agree with you. It's clear there are no sources for this information. And that the article will never have any real world context.Ridernyc 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If the article was improving but still far from perfect, I would agree that this is too soon. But there have been ~150 edits since then, none of them adding sources, none of them establishing real-world notability. I think it's clear that nobody is willing or able to do anything to correct the problems with this article. --Stormie 02:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cheap nomination, or one showing a lack of good faith, would be if you had found a few good references to establish notability and we said "Delete anyway!". There is nothing to assume good faith about in fact, the weight is on the keepers to assert it has ANY notability. Judgesurreal777 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Start Fresh. I definitely agree with Axem Titanium. This seems to deserve an article in my opinion, but it just needs to be totally redone. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. This article needs to have a fresh start and need to be redone, so I agree with Axem Titanium. Greg Jones II 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. It is time to wipe the slate clean. RFerreira 08:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know why the closing admin did not delete this article last time around, as his closing comments were: "I would note that this totally fails notability guidelines. Hopefully this time the closing admin will be brave enough to delete the article as the lack of verifiable primary sources makes cleanup impossible. --Gavin Collins 09:19, 4 December 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.