Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forsaken (Warcraft)
Source: 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 delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forsaken (Warcraft)
- Forsaken (Warcraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
plot summaries
.
There are
notability of this article relevant to non-Warcraft
players. It even has a chart depicting the various classes avaliable to the various races, something irrelevant outside of Warcraft.
It contains
unsourced
material.
This article contains
]- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
Keep: Notable;WP:POINT[reply]
- ]
- Yes, which is a good argument.--Neverpitch 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No, it's not; hence the existence of the link. JuJube 07:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That link is bullshit. Just the opinion of someone, not even a guideline or policy.--Neverpitch 19:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No, it's not; hence the existence of the link. JuJube 07:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, which is a good argument.--Neverpitch 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT. This article should be deleted, because it is excessively detailed, impossible to sources for, and it puts undue weight on one aspect of the game.
- Excessive detail means that this article contains trivia, and that some details are included for their own sake, without any context and without any helpful addition to aid the reader's understanding of the topic. Plot summaries are only appropriate in Wikipedia where they aid the rest of the article by providing necessary background information. Furthermore, the article, within the context of the topic it draws its notability from, puts undue weight one aspect: the lore and plot of the game, and other specifics. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. This aspect does not deserve more attention than, for example, the reception and the development of the game.
- Finally, we have to look if the alternatives for deletion (]
- Delete no valid arguments for retaining this page have been advanced. AnteaterZot 10:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wholly an =/\= | 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please review the article I've made some changes and cited it a bit. The article is poorly written, and I've had to re-write the intro to assert the notability of this race, but this pertains to one of the primary races in what is currently the world's most popular MMO, hosting over 9 million active players. That's really about as notable as something involving a video game can get, and based on previous Featured Articles of the Day, such notability is more than acceptable on Wikipedia. -Harmil 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the above, but it has to be further noted that all of this could be written in the space this topic has within Playable races in the Warcraft series#Undead_(Forsaken). The primary races (or, in a layman's terms, the primary plot elements) of a game of such a scope are indeed notable, however, this line of reasoning does not extend to showing why each should have a separate article. User:Krator (t c) 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not inherited. Why is this race notable in the real world? Have secondary sources discussed it? The article has almost no out-of-universe information. There should at a bare minimum be a section about the design development of the race. Take a look at Master Chief (Halo), particularly the "Character design" and "Impact and reception" sections. If there is no available information of this sort, there is nothing to warrant a separate article. Pagrashtak 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Harmil. Rray 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The massive amount of problems this article has, chief among them a complete lack of notability, make this a sure delete. Judgesurreal777 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability is not this article's problem (though it has many). Being one of the two playable factions in the world's most popular video game played by 9 million people worldwide is as notable as anything in a video game ever gets.Sorry... it's early for me. Yeah, I'm commenting on the wrong AfD. -Harmil 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--SilverhandTalk 16:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as WP:ATD says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Edward321 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this ]
- delete the people who are voting to keep are doing so basically from WP:ILIKEIT not for any valid reasons. The nominator was dead on when citing policy reasons for deletion.Balloonman (talk) 23:47, 18 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.