The result was Close and relist individual if need be.. There are a number of suggestions, by a number of editors indicating bad form. So, since the articles are different in some respects the consensus so far here, and the best practice may be to nominate individually. Mercury 18:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Nominating the following:
In short: Non-notable gamecruft. In long:
Not all of those are that bad though. I'd argue for keeping Corrupted Blood at least - that appears to have third-party references, and was discussed outside of the WoW community. enochlau (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the second one is not listed om the talk page it should also be noted that Corrupted Blood already survived 2 AFD nominations and quite handely in both cases. --67.68.152.38 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comments' I would like to take the time to point out to everyone that getting rid of them will not be a loss in any way, shape, or form, because the warcraft wiki is already SEVERAL times more comprehensive then wikipedia's pages, check it out. http://www.wowwiki.com/Main_Page BassxForte 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]