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 WHAT A LONG STRANGE ROAD IT'S BEEN. The old WOW article is gone, an encyclopedic stub about something completely different is in its place. Good job WP:ARS! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arathi[edit]

Arathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This "article", or sentence, could not be prodded successfully, so here it is at AFD, taking up peoples time to debate whether or not a microscopic unsourced stub of a tribe from Warcraft should have a whole article or not. You decide. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not worth anything. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Warcraft if there is anything to merge. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't merit a separate article. Artene50 (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. 700,000+ Ghits for 'Arathi WoW' certainly leads me to suspect notability. So do things like (brief) mentions in the NYT and some 64 news hits for the same thing. That said, a 2 minute search didn't turn up anything. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make AFD into a joke, the new york times and all those news hits for this Warcraft tribe? You have no idea what is in those hits, and the google hits are mostly likely all fan stuff with no evidence of notability in the lot. If your going to find something to establish notability, please do, but otherwise, you are copying Le Grand Roi's tactic of wasting our time with random and pointless google hits. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources (including the NYT one) they all appear to refer to a fictional geographic area. I don't play WoW, nor have I heard of this before, so I may well be off base here. But that's a lot of ghits. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The locations are in World of Warcraft--they may be in other games of the series as well(one is a PvP battleground and the other is a regular zone). The coverage of them as regions doesn't appear to be that detailed (the NYT line is a throwaway). Protonk (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Warcraft (series). I don't think there is anything here to merge. MuZemike (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete This doesn't need its own article. If there are sufficient sources that discuss this subject significantly then we can talk about keeping it. A google search for "Arathi and WoW" will come up with lots of hits because "Arathi Basin" is a PvP area and "Arathi Highlands" is a regular game area. None of those googlehits means anything unless they point to a source that covers the region (or tribe) specifically. You might as well search for "battleground WoW" or "PvP WoW" and post those hits. Fails the WP:GNG as is. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or redirect to Warcraft (series): Doesn't meet the notability guideline, because there isn't enough coverage in reliable third party sources to write anything beyond "Arathi are a tribe in Warcraft". This would even meet our speedy deletion criteria, but the PROD was contested for some strange reason. Randomran (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Keep to the extent that this article covers a notable African religious movement. Good job on finding the sources. I wish all AFDs could be this productive. Randomran (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable fictional group which hasn't received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the article is a copy-paste from WoWWiki, see this 2008 diff and this 2006 Wowwiki article. Nifboy (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Arathi also appears to be a real world group in Africa. See [1]. I'll update the article accordingly. -Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article used to redirect to Aarti. Nifboy (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have begun revising it into a disamibugation page and so recommend if editors believe that the Warcraft content is worthwhile, then having an article called Arathi (Warcraft), but the concept as used in non-fiction seems one that can be elaborated on through multiple published sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This 'new' article isn't so much a disambiguation page as it is two distinct subjects shoehorned into one article. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as dab page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: - seriously, this is ridiculous. All this over (what was at the beginning) one sentence? Turning it into a disambiguation page is no good either, disambiguation pages are meant to contain links to articles related to the namespace it is in, not discuss every single possible meaning that a word might have. This discussion is overkill. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: our aim is to summarise human knowledge, not document it all in microscopic detail. If its necessary to the understanding of World of Warcraft, then integrate the one sentence there and be done with it, and then build upon the African prophet stuff. However, at the moment, the African stuff just looks like mentions of the word vaguely strung together, it doesn't make any sense. I suggest someone seriously researches the African use of the word after this discussion closes, as although it doesn't currently make any sense, Le Grand's references on the African side of thing do suggest a possibility of notability (unless of course this is just another way of spelling Aarti, in which case redirect it there). -- Sabre (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The warcraft stuff is cruft and needs to go. However the African term seems backed by reliable sources enough to satisfy notability. I have taken the liberty of stubifying down to the religion. Taemyr (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Comment requested from the folks woking with Religion and Africa on relation to AartiTaemyr (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following Taemyr's cleanup to remove the WoW WP:GAMETRIVIA (and keep that stuff out of this article, merge it into some appropriate (notable) target lke the main WoW article itself, perhaps). --Craw-daddy | T | 15:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Still delete - You might ask why the nominator is voting in his own page? Because now the page has been transformed into a dictionary definition, and is still inappropriate for wikipedia, and should still be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is at the moment more than a dicdef in the article. That is, it mentions the fact that the religious movement got outlawed. More importantly, there is potential for more content, and hence deletion is inappropriate. (At least at this stage, if nothing happens with the article for 6 months or so I might have to reevaluate my optimistic concerns over potential for improvement.)Taemyr (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And since we are not voting, it's completely appropriate that you clarify your position when circumstances change. Otherwise we would have no way of knowing what your current feeling about the articel was. Taemyr (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The world of warcraft stuff is nonsense, but the Kenyan religious movement is notable. I've added a few more sentences, and I'll be adding more. There's lots of good stuff on Google Books, such as Freedom of the Spirit (start at page 123). Since it's a subject where I really don't know all that much I'll have quite a bit of reading to do before I can make many improvements, but it seems like there are plenty of sources out there. Vickser (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now the Warcraft cruft has been cleaned out and its relatively clear what this real-world Arathi is, I'll lend my support to not deleting the article. Its more than a dictionary definition, its got some half-decent references and its certainly got potential. -- Sabre (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article in its current form, while rather short, is well-sourced and lacks cruft or junk. Gelmax (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - This has to have been the strangest AFD ever; an article that was not long ago about a tribe in the Warcraft video game series is now about a small African religion...unbelievable! Good job people! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (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.