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 — again, there's not clear merger/redirect target, so request a copy if you'd like to merge it. --Haemo 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Player versus player in World of Warcraft

[edit]

See also (added by Melsaran):

Archive 1

Pure and simple: game cruft.

Only players of World of Warcraft would find this information usable. Per WP:N, it does not have any significance outside of World of Warcraft and its players. IAmSasori 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PvP is something that might should be lightly touched on in the main article, but it's not notable enough for an entire daughter article.--SeizureDog 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the heels of the RuneScape AfD sequence, and on the still-warm corpse of the original AfD comes another group of nominations from an editor who has five minor edits a month prior to these noms. I make no apologies for sounding cynical, however, I am still getting that feeling that someone is still trying to make a point. I guess I'd feel a little more confident in this whole series of AfDs if they were nominated by an editor who has a little bit more of an active history. I do disclose a conflict-of-interest, as I am a contributor to several of these. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that the last AfD was closed with the intent for individual relist; the actual issue was not solved. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag Reeks of original research and unreferenced claims. Besides the IGN link provided at the bottom, no other third party refs, and after some google searching, no other good sources to add. Reading through it, found little that is of interest and import to understanding the game/to the general reader. Best just mentioned in the main article. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research can be eliminated, we don't need deletion for that. Melsaran (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of independent notability. Smacks of original research. shoy 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it is independently not notable from the World of Warcraft series, but that's only logical since it is a sub-article for the World of Warcraft article. Would you want to delete the article chess strategy since it is not notable independently from chess? Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my response here. shoy 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hardly notable enough to warrant its own article. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Different topics have different articles. This is merely detailed information on a (notable) fictional subject, and there's nothing wrong with that. As WP:FICT states: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Merging it into World of Warcraft would be unhelpful, since it would get far too long. Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan cruft. Ridernyc 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is not a compelling argument for deletion. I consider articles on science "sciencecruft" since I am not interested in science, but I don't nominate those for deletion those either. Melsaran (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

has nothhing to do with my interest level has to do with if there should be a comprehensive guide to every MMORPG included in an enclopedia. The answer is no. This stuff has it's place and I think it's great that people want to work on topics like this. The place for it is wowwiki, not here. Ridernyc 12:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - provides no proof of Notability, nor any real-world context. Ong elvin 16:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a subarticle that was split off of World of Warcraft. As WP:FICT states: Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. (...) In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Melsaran (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete. Gamecruft, unencyclopedic, nonsense article. Keb25 09:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Recommend reading WP:CSD#G1 for criteria of "nonsense": This does not include: ... fictional material Even though this is not being sent under CSD, the definition applies. Yng varr 09:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "Cruft" is subjective and smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as does "unencyclopedic" (please explain why it is unencyclopedic), and it is definitely not a nonsense article. Melsaran (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a valid argument for deletion. Valid information on a notable subject, split off into its own article. Melsaran (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. The article meets WP:N for having being covered in a non trivial way in independent reliable sources; the IGN articles have "PvP in World of Warcraft" as a primary topic. However, the coverage in these articles is too small for an article of its own - it could be treated in the PvP subsection of the Gameplay section in the main WoW article. User:Krator (t c) 13:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Can't find reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim down and merge back in the WoW article. I don't think PvP in any game is notable enough to merit being extended more than a few lines in the main article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:46, 17 October 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.