Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argent Dawn

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. If anyone wants the page userfied for a transwiki, drop a line on my talk. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argent Dawn

No third-party sources, unnotable to non-Warcraft players, and is gamecruft.

The only source on the article is to a player's guide. That with no independent third-party sources, it is most likely not notable to non-players and the real world.

It also contains gamecruft, which is a likely attractor of original research, adding more of unsourced material to the article. IAmSasori 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —IAmSasori 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, WP:WAF and 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:WAF and 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 (WP:ATD) could be employed to save the article from destruction. Merging is an impossibility here, because none of the content is properly sourced, and simply moving the excessive detail will not solve that problem. Also, the problem of putting undue weight on one aspect of the game will not disappear with a merge. Editing to remove the bad parts of the article would leave nothing there. The content is not only without sources, but it is also impossible to find any reliable secondary coverage for it. This is an important requirement, as Wikipedia could verbatim repeat all that is said in a certain game without it. See also WP:VG/S#Video games User:Krator (t c) 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect As noted above, there's not much to merge that's well sourced (which is unfortunate), but this is a major contingent within the game, and the primary protagonist non-player group for "tier 3" (for those not initiated tier 3 represents about 6 months of the game's real-time history, from the time that the Naxxaramus dungeon was opened until the first stand-alone expansion (The Burning Crusade) was released. That period was dominated by the in-game storyline surrounding the Lich King, Scarlet Crusade and the Argent Dawn. There's not a lot of information available yet, but almost certainly there will be a strong Argent Dawn plot thread involved in the soon-to-be-released second expansion, Wrath of the Lich King. As such, a redirect will aid searching that is certain to be performed from both external search engines and Wikipedia's search in the future. -Harmil 15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Harmil and Neverpitch. Rray 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - As long as this non notable article no longer has its own article. Judgesurreal777 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--Silverhand^Talk 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an article containing cruft is not a valid reason for deletion, as gamecruft shows. The nominator's assumption that the article will acquire original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's assumption that lack of sources means the topic is not notable is not valid reason for deletion. An article containing plot summaries is not a valid reason for deletion, as plot summaries shows. WP:DEL#REASON does say that articles can be deleted if "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", but no attempts to find sources appear to have been made. WP:ATD says that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.", in this case adding sources tag would be appropriate. Edward321 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as primary sources demonstrate this comes from a game guide. This fictional organisation has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability outside of the game guide. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.