User:Cactus.man/Scripts/WikEdStyle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DKP (3rd nomination): Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Cactus.man (talk | contribs) ←Created page with 'WikEd Style Test ==Heading== ==Heading 2== ==Heading 3== ==Heading 4== ==Heading 5== '''Bold''' ''Italic'' '''''Bold italic''''' ...' |
|||
Line 1:
===[[DKP]] (3rd nomination)===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|G}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DKP}}</ul></div>
:{{la|DKP}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DKP (3rd nomination)|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 8#{{anchorencode:DKP}}|View log]])</noinclude>
This article, while well written, does not assert the [[WP:N|notability]] of the topic, and could not possibly be rewritten to assert any notability. Although [[World of Warcraft]], [[Everquest]] and other [[MMORPG]]s are notable, fan-made systems used by their players do not automatically become notable by association. Popularity aside, the only sources currently in the article are:
*Guides on how to use DKP, written by WoW players
*Definitions of DKP from lists of gaming terminology
*Trivial mentions of DKP in articles about WoW
*A single "fun" whitepaper on DKP which links this Wikipedia article in a footnote
Those don't strike me as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that are [[WP:V#Sources|independent]] of the subject, and no sources other than guild sites and gaming guide sites can be found, resulting in an article that states what DKP is, but not its impact on gaming or the real world. The arguments for keeping in the past consisted of "[[WP:ILIKEIT|I like it]]," "[[WP:USEFUL|It's useful]]" and "[[WP:BIGNUMBER|Lots of people play WoW]]." The article would work well on a gaming wiki such as [http://www.wowwiki.com WoWWiki], but not here. [[User:Phony Saint|Phony Saint]] 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:I was hoping not to see this one on AfD again for a bit, and considered suggesting it's too early to put this one through the AfD grinder again so soon - but given the changes made to the article I suppose it's appropriate. I was the nominator for the previous 2 AfD's, and both times my beef was that the article was a massive [[WP:OR]] piece and a repository for links to guild websites. Since the second AfD, I have made an attempt to rewrite the article and purge the OR elements. While I feel it is a massive improvement in terms of the issues I had with it, there is still the issue of [[WP:N|notability]] and encyclopedic content. Regarding N, my gut reaction is to say "Yes, this is notable. It is a well known concept within the context of MMORPG's." That said, the problem is that the concept is ''only'' notable within the context of the games and to date there is a paucity of reliable, secondary, independent sources to satisfy notability guidelines. Secondly, as the closer of the last AfD stated, this article needs to focus on encyclopedic content - history of the subject, measurable impact it has had, etc - and less on descriptive analysis and, essentially, "game guide material." My attempts to remove OR material and apply the given sources appropriately still don't do much at all to alleviate the fact that this is material still better suited to a game guide, such as Wowwiki as suggested by the nom, than a general knowledge encyclopedia like Wikipedia.
:I dislike the conundrum that this article presents. As demonstrated by the previous nominations, there is little community consensus to delete this information, and I don't percieve that as changing. On the other hand there is the undeniable fact that this article suffers from a number of problems with regards to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, also well demonstrated by the previous nominations. It feels like an unecessary stalemate where we are saying "Yeah, this article is a mess and no one knows how to fix it, but we can't delete it either, so it's a no-consensus conclusion." I find the continual lack of consensus dissatisfying. I cannot quite endorse the article as it stands but also cannot deny that deletion would be in contravention to consensus. There must be a solution. To that end I am forced to suggest stripping this down to a barebones definition (sans the detailed analysis) and '''merging''' the resultant definition into [[Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms]], while retaining this as a redirect and allowing for future recreation ''if'' and ''when'' the reliable secondary sources to establish an encyclopedic (not game-guide material) article. If the agreeable, stripped-down definition is still too large to merge, then retain it as a stub. [[User:Arkyan|<b><font color="#0000FF">Ark</font><font color="#6060BF">yan</font></b>]] • [[User_talk:Arkyan|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
*'''comment''' the problem with such merges is that they usually lead to loss of content, & the good material is more extensive than the single paragraph that would fit there. And that article is quite long already. I think that we need to find a better way or organizing its, though it's not really my area of expertise. (I note that we can probably expect academic studies etc etc. in future years--they would eventually justify good articles.)'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
| |||