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. Kurykh 06:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horadrim[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and appears to be simply an in-universe plot repetition of the plot of different Diablo games. As such, its just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have stated this is from the Doom series, yet is clearly from the Diablo series. Please slow down at flagging articles for deletion en masse, as you've continually projected very little knowledge about the hundreds of articles you've hastily tried to erase from this site with minimal effort. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable outside the game/fantasy world. Pharmboy (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close You're gaming the system by daily flagging articles based on games, TV and/or movies for not having "real world notability" per anonymous ISP up there Doc Strange (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry about that, your right it is Diablo, I read Diablo when I wrote that, as I write them most of the time each time and not mass produce tags, and Doom must have been in my head when I wrote it. The concerns remain though, that there is a lack of notabiilty and referencing in this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close- the fantasy world makes it notable enough, this policy is wrong, and per above this user is clearly gaming the system.--Blueanode (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to get into the politics here, but claiming "the policy is wrong" doesn't really belong here and arguements should be based on the policies. If you want to change the policy, go to that talk page for that policy. As to 'gaming the system', I have no idea and you haven't provided enough information to make your claim, nor has the above. Submitting a lot of articles by itself doesn't indicate abuse without futher evidence. You might as well call him a communist or whatever, if you don't provide more info. Many people believe (including myself) believe that 'in universe' articles don't belong in Wikipedia unless there is ample sources to demonstrate notability outside of that universe. The 'fantasy world', in spite of your claims, does NOT make it notable enough on its own. At least that is what the policies here seem to indicate. Pharmboy (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Judgesurreal777.27s_deletion_game it appears I am not the only one who thinks your claims of "gaming the system" is bogus. The admins at Wikipedia tend to agree. Muddying the AFD with nonfactual stuff isn't appreciated. Pharmboy (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, repeats plot details from two games and adds nothing else, no coverage demonstrated in reliable secondary sources or out-of-universe details. Someone another (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More suited to a guide about the Diablo universe than an encyclopedia. Not enough encyclopedic information to justify an entire article to itself. Una Laguna^Talk 11:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing but plot details presented. Does not provide any coverage by secondary sources to satisfy WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:53, 3 January 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.