Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft (3rd 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 — since this is a complicated closure, I will add some closing comments.

While there are legitimate concerns over the timing of this discussion, given that the last one was only a month ago, I must note that both of the prior discussions closed without a consensus; not, as some users in this discussion believe as a "keep". When a discussion is closed as "no consensus" that means there was not a consensus to do anything; keep, or delete. In most cases, this leads to a default keep, since the default is inclusion except in extraordinary cases. Thus, the fact that it survived previous AfDs is not a endorsement of this article's status, nor is re-nominating it "another spin at the AfD roulette wheel" (since roulette ends in a clear win/lose outcome). While the timing might be a little soon, it is not disruptively so, and I don't believe that it prejudiced the discussion in such a way that I cannot determine a consensus from it.

Now, with that said, there were a number of arguments brought forward here — discounting rationales addressed by the above, there remain an number of arguments which do not present a clear rationale supported. Simply commenting "game cruft" or "Why this and not that" does not help us determine consensus, though the former is more useful than the latter. While there were good arguments made on both sides, the consensus of the debate tends towards a belief that the external notability of the subject is not well-established by reliable sources. While it is clear that World of Warcraft is notable, consensus appears that it is not clear that these classes are sufficiently notable to provide a useful and encyclopedic sub-article. Most of the keep articles centered around it being a legitimate daughter page of a larger, more notable article — however, this does not address the concerns with respect to notability in a way which gained consensus here.

Since there are merger concerns, I'm taking the advice noted in the discussion and redirecting to World of Warcraft, in order to allow for these concerns to be addressed. --Haemo 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pure and simple: game cruft.

Only players of World of Warcraft would find this information usable. Per WP:N, it does not have any significance outside of World of Warcraft and its players. IAmSasori 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the heels of the RuneScape AfD sequence, and on the still-warm corpse of the original AfD comes another group of nominations from an editor who has five minor edits a month prior to these noms. I make no apologies for sounding cynical, however, I am still getting that feeling that someone is still trying to make a point. I guess I'd feel a little more confident in this whole series of AfDs if they were nominated by an editor who has a little bit more of an active history. I do disclose a conflict-of-interest, as I am a contributor to several of these. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment stricken Withdrawn Yngvarr 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Isn't this supposed to be called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft (third nomination)? I hope the nominator read the two other discussions before nominating this article. I fear the rationale for deletion here is a bit concise. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a month and 4 days after the last AfD closed. What has changed since then to warrant this article being deleted? Raoul 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: What's wrong with the reason given for deletion? There are no reliable sources to assert notability in the real world. (Disclosure: I have not edited this article at all). shoy 12:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Vote struck for now. shoy 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This can be (and is) reliably sourced to the game documentation, Blizzard's official website, and reasonably trustworthy sites made by players. "Cruft" is not a reason to delete this, and boils down to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The information here is extensive enough that it should not be merged into the article in chief on World of Warcraft. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WikiProject Video Games article guidelines:

"A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture."

"Content that may be moved to gaming wikis:

Lists of statistics, items, or other minutiae"

In short, Wikipedia is not a game guide. shoy 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unstriking some comments. Some sections need a sledgehammer taken to them for getting too much into gameplay mechanics. It should be noted as well that a wiki is generally not a reliable source. shoy 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Smerdis. If it can only be sourced from primary or unreliable sources, then that's a pretty good indication we should not have an article. Per policy we are supposed to work from reliable secondary sources and not be a directory or just a collection of information - sure we can use primary sources sometimes, but not if they are all that exist. I tend to draw a distinction between facts and knowledge; this is facts not knowledge. Cruftbane 16:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there is not already one someone needs to make a WOW wiki, that would be where this stuff belongs.Ridernyc 17:10, 15 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) 10:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Millions of books have specifically been written about history. Millions of books have not been specifically written about "classes in World of Warcraft". shoy 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're oversimplifying to prove your point. Comparing "classes in World of Warcraft" to "history" is like comparing apples to orange plantations. Let's level the playing field: The article Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya is currently featured in the "Did You Know..." section of the main page. Searching for "Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya" in Google yields 10 results. On the other hand, searching for Medivh warcraft yields 1,590,000 results. I think it's safe to say that "millions of books" have not been written about Gopal Chandra Bhattacharya, or even that anyone without an interest in obscure entomological textbooks written in Bengali cares about who he was. Meanwhile, there seems to be a significant amount of interest in Medivh, a character from World of Warcraft. It's looking more and more like your various reasons for supporting these AfDs can all be boiled down to a heaping helping of WP:IDONTLIKEIT topped with WP:WHOCARES. -Rhrad 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't the one who brought up history in general as an example. And I rather dislike the suggestion that I'm making these points on the basis of some personal vendetta against WoW. I just happen to dislike the misuse of policy. shoy 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the last discussion was only about a month ago. The game is notable enough that there will be an interest inthis kind of material and we shouldn't be exclusive of our readers and potential editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the same reasons as last time. The article does not violate WP:NOT. The volume of information on the subject and the amount of press coverage suggests, to me at least, that the topic is notable. Primary sources are reliable in this sort of article, and I really can't understand Cruftbane's opinion that the article should be removed because it is all facts. It is true that it has no real world relevance outside of the subject and the people who would be interested in it, but that is true of any article from Google to water. My reasons may seem a bit concise and poorly argued, but having participated in the two previous deletion discussions I cannot be bothered to go over all of it again, so you can look in those topics for clearer arguments. Raoul 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This looks like another spin at the AfD roulette wheel. I found persusasive looking at how many articles needed to link here and also considering that somewhere upwards of 8 million people play/have-played as these classes. --Gwern (contribs) 17:53 15 October 2007 (GMT)

It still fails WP:N, as despite that 8 million players are within these classes, they are still only notable to World of Warcraft players. Having survived the previous AfDs does not justify its survival in this one. IAmSasori 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Close Nuisance nom way too soon after the last one. Artw 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to WoWwiki and redirect to Warcraft. I feel that it would be better for all parties if game help and in-universe articles were found there, and that it would improve the encyclopedic quality of WoW articles on wikipedia.--victor falk 22:23, 15 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) 11:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
• Delete as this is clearly a plot or character summary. For clear guidance on this issue, see the Video games guidelines which state that articles "should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia". --Gavin Collins 09:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article on World of Warcraft gives information about the real-world influence of the subject, this article is merely a "section" of the World of Warcraft article. It has been split off because the section got too long, and 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. Saying that every section should provide real-world context is unrealistic, because then we should remove the #Gameplay section from the Poker article or the strategy and tactics section from the Chess article. Melsaran (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The main article provides real world influence of the game, but this article is of a completely different nature. Whereas Poker Gameplay provides context, analysis and a history of the development of the game, this article does not provide any useful content as it comprises entirely of game guide and plot or character summary. The video guidlines go on to state "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. This guideline in a nutshell: Wikipedia is not a game guide." This article contravenes these guidelines. Also there are insufficient footnotes to demonstrate the notability of these fictional characters.--Gavin Collins 12:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, very much so overly detailed game guide information. Not notable otherwise.--SeizureDog 11:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: there is no reason to delete this and not the individual articles for D&D classes. It might be overly long, but certainly if the races of world of warcraft are included so should the classes. C mon 08:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The individual DnD class articles of which you speak should also be deleted. Also, "if the races of world of warcraft are included so should the classes" is a bad point to make at this point considering the races are also going through afd.--SeizureDog 08:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. We went through it several times, each time with "keep" result. And this nomination by a clearly disruptive user should probably not change much. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's been kept before" is not a valid reason to continue to keep the article. This is not a vote, support your case.--SeizureDog 08:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Defaulting to keep In all honesty I don't know exactly where to stand, in the lights of the Runescape AfD. My guts tell me that this subarticle of World of Warcraft is notable per the notability of its parent. I think it avoids being a gameguide (read the first AfD for my rationale). I agree that it fails in adressing its own notability, but I am not sure how much to ponder both arguments. I am therefore defaulting to keep. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. shoy 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability of a parent entity does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. My opinion is that it is in this case (it's really a subarticle that can't fit the main article (when for example PvP and Reputation articles can be merged)). -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not Notable. We're not a game guide. As to having survived before — mistakes happen; learn from them, don't repeat them. --Jack Merridew 15:44, 18 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.