Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvanas Windrunner

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, most of the keep voters didn't give a valid reason. This is a Secret ^account 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvanas Windrunner

Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.

As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.

This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.

This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.

This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.

Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.

This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For all the reasons as before. DarthSidious 07:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

~~Hesitant~~ Keep - The article is a god awful mess, but I believe it is notable enough on its own (major characters in TV shows meet the notability requirements so it only seems fitting that major characters in equally popular games do the same). Granted the article is a disaster right now but deleting it would set a precedent that would make it difficult to recreate it in proper form. As for it being OR, most, if not all of that information seems to be taken (although not properly referenced, from the various texts associated with the games and from actuall in-game mentions, cinematics, and so forth. Very little of it actually appears to be conjecture.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 09:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read WP:WAF it expalins what is required for fiction. Even if sourcing was not an issue there is and I doubt there ever will any real world context in this article.Ridernyc 08:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with the previous user. Dimts 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unless the article gets into some kind of "unrepairable" state, I believe it should remain as its own article. BassxForte 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, poorly written fancruft which fails WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. Bobby1011 06:05, 5 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.