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 No consensus. While the delete !votes are quite compelling, there were also enough strong keep !votes (such as Cyberskull noting that this map made Battle.net's Hall of Fame) to bring this out of a consensus to delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient assertion of notability for a fan-made Warcraft map. WP:WEB not met. Wikipedia is not a game guide. "Eve of the Apocalypse" warcraft -wikipedia gets only 109 unique Ghits. -- Scientizzle 17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve of the Apocalypse

Also included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense of the Ancients (2nd Nomination), but Eve of the Apocalypse was barely discussed

• Keep Apart from the fact that there's actually 140 Google hits, the facts that it has actually survived 2 nominations for deletion (the second one being this, I can only state my opinion that being an oficially recognized mod for a bestseller game qualifies EotA for inclusion here. Discombobulator 18:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the link. If you add -wikipedia, it is only 109 hits. I also added your other nom link above. -- Scientizzle 18:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a source for EotA being an "oficially recognized mod" (Officially recognized by whom? Blizzard?)? Do you know of any coverage that would meet WP:WEB? It survived 2 nominations, yes, but the 1st was 2 deletes, a merge and a sock's keep (for no consensus); it survived the 2nd nom by riding the coat-tails of Defense of the Ancients...this article was hardly discussed. -- Scientizzle 18:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know, editing without an account was allowed back then. The IP is mine, anyway. EotA may have been discussed less then some other maps at the second nomination, but notice that there were several votes picking EotA out as worthwile of staying. Proof of it being in the hall of fame is here. Discombobulator 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe placing 2nd on the battle.net Hall of Fame counts meets "The...content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation" since battle.net is run by Blizzard and only covers their three games. -- Scientizzle 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An encyclopedia article for a video game map? Ridiculous. Sandstein 09:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more of a mod then a map. Think Counter-Strike. Discombobulator 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If other Warcraft III Maps are allowed to have articles, why shouldn't this one? If this one goes, perhaps Defence of the Ancients should be considered (although trust me, it won't get deleted without the fanbois swarming and refusing to let it be deleted). This map is as notable, and was spotlighted by Blizzard, as the second map. --BGBkstroke 10:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You basically argued the same thing on AfDs for "other Warcraft III maps," Dark Deeds & Footmen Wars. (This strikes me as a ridiculous contradiction to your own argument: "don't delete this article becuase other Warcraft III custom map articles exist," then you vote to keep the other articles, too?!) The discussion here is about Eve of the Apocalypse, and Eve of the Apocalypse should be considered in its merits alone. There is no "fairness" involving Wikipedia articles--a subject either merits an article, according to Wikipedia policies & guidelines, or does not. If other Warcraft III custom maps have articles, they are to be considered on their merits. -- Scientizzle 03:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per most of the above. Hard to see how it will meet WP:V even before we get to notability. JoshuaZ 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is not a game guide, but this is an informative article- not telling you how to play, but what this game is about. Same with Footmen Frenzy. --Adam Wang 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable. nn. Ziggurat 22:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The custom maps for the WC games are for the most part not notable, that includes this one. Besides the link to Battle.net (reliable source?) there has been no attempt to show notability. Altair 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Battle.net is Blizzard Entertainment's official multiplayer site. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Altair 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Altair 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails verifiability and reliable sources. Wickethewok 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, the map made the Battle.net hall of fame, seems notable enough to me if Blizzard Entertainment picks it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CyberSkull. Havok (T/C/c) 09:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same reasons as previously statedby others above. The Kinslayer 10:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I guess being listed as a Battle.net Hall of Famer gives it sufficient notability. The Kinslayer 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As has been pointed out above, this fails WP:V and WP:NOT a game guide. -- Steel 18:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The little information that acts as a "game guide" can be re-written or removed. And no, it dosn't actually fail WP:V. Havok (T/C/c) 10:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I would have thought Battle.net would have counted as a reliable, verifiable source of notability. The Kinslayer 15:36, 5 October 2006 (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.