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 USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. This isn't going anywhere, as far too many articles were bundled together into a single AFD.

If someone wants to open a much smaller (not more than four articles at a time, please) AFD on one or some of these articles so that the individual merits of specific articles can be discussed, feel free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft character articles[edit]

I am retracting this nomination as it seems to be spiralling towards a brawl. I doubt any good faith consensus can result from this discussion. I'll approach this from another angle later. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your close. Nominators have no special rights to close an AfD after a second person has supported deletion, and this one seems to have been headed fairly close to a delete consensus when you changed your mind. --Aquillion 01:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I am then striking out all my comments as I do not support this nomination any futher. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my parting message for this Article: I'm going the same way as Kaustuv, he knew what he was doing when he jumped ship on this one... This list is a mess and doesn’t even begin to encompass all the good/bad character articles related to Warcraft. The only thing this will lead to is: At best, a purging of a few bad articles. At worst, a complete annihilation of a slew of good and bad articles. I started some heavy research into these articles; an Excel document where I tried to at least organize this heap of articles. Through this process I discovered at least twice again as many articles that fit into this category better than Medivh! One didn't even exist ("Blackhand")! Some of the propositions stated below are very intelligent and the sadly failed objective of this article (to set a standard for AfDs brought up by WP:FICT) was a noble cause, but this is not the place that that is going to happen. My advice is to scrap this page before someone gets hurt, and try again with a more specific organized and comprehensive list. For crying out loud, the originator of this nomination left! OrcShaman42 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion

This is a group nomination of a series of Warcraft character pages. My deletion rationale is as follows, in bulleted form but not necessarily in order of importance.

• None of the characters are notable outside the Warcraft fandom. None of the articles provide a clue how to verify from reliable sources why the nominated characters are notable except as elements of the Warcraft plot.
• There is already a page, List of Warcraft characters, that has encyclopedic summaries of all of these characters. One might argue that WP:FICT recommends splitting off articles on major characters to keep the list sized properly, but that does not obviate the need for individual notability of such characters.
• Many of the character articles have long and detailed plot and biographical exposition. They skirt the boundary of game guide territory, although they are for the most part not instruction manuals (i.e., they do not say how to kill the mobs for phat loot). I think this amount of detail is wrongly placed in Wikipedia. The common epithet for such articles is gamecruft, i.e., information that is only of interest to fans of the game.

The information in these articles is freely (in the GFDL sense) available in a much more comprehensive form in WoWWiki, which I have linked using the legend "ww" for comparison purposes. Many of WP's articles are word-for-word duplicates of their WoWWiki entries (eg. Captain Placeholder), cite their counterpart on WoWWiki (eg. Hakkar the Soulflayer), or are completely unsourced (eg. Grom Hellscream). There is even a template, ((wowwiki)), designed to help citations of WoWWiki easier. I should hardly have to point out that wikis do not qualify as reliable primary or secondary sources.

For precedents, see the following concluded AfD and the precedents therefrom.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles

Note: this AfD, if it achieves consensus either way, will become a strong precedent. Please carefully consider whether Wikipedia should contain unsourced (or improperly sourced) articles on individual NPCs, mobs, and "lore" entities of dubious notability in a MMORPG, or whether a summary article such as List of Warcraft characters suffices for our encyclopedic purposes.

— Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Discussion

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 06:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Guess I'll be the first. First and foremost, wikipedia is not an indescriminant collection of information. It is not a game guide. Such things can be promoted and listed on other, more in depth websites, such as, in this case, WoWWiki. As its already word-for-word copies. Delete them all. We even have an interwiki link for it, wowwiki:. Add to that the nom's notes about verifiability. Is this interpreted material? If so its original research on wowwiki, and is not a good source for information here. Is it paraphrased from a game manual? Its copyvio then. I see so much wrong with this set of articles as a result. A list would be a much better place for this. --Kevin_b_er 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete individual articles, an annotated list might not be bad, but this level of detail is not necessary for a general encyclopedia and the distiction between cannon/OR and fan fic makes these kind of articles especaiily problematic for wikipedia.--Peta 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Find the examples of fan fiction and OR (material that has been interpreted and not directly stated in the games, manuals, books, or comics), and feel free to remove that material. That's different than deleting the articles. Also, AFD is not the right place to request a merge.JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of information. also per well researched nom.--Ageo020 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I am reluctant to delete so many articles that are reasonably well-written, but it is complete Craftcruft and not of interest to anyone outside players of those games. Not an indiscriminate collection of information, etc. BoojiBoy 02:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduce, merge all except major characters, or delete. theProject 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AFD is not the right place to request a merge. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As a general principle, Strong Delete. If any of these are individually notable, I cannot possibly say, but I allow that a few could be. Applaud nominator for doing the work! - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry folks, this isn't a game guide. Is there a Warcraft Wiki? Maybe there should be one for stuff like this. RedRollerskate 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please state how character articles constitute game guides. Also, the existence of the information on other wikis is not grounds for deletion in and of itself. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For god's sake it's just a game. You don't need to have bios on inanimate characters. --Xrblsnggt 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Read WP:FICT. Wikipedia is the place to have bios on notable inanimate characters.JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Geez, that made the Satchel Cohen hoax look like a piece of cake. Yanksox 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-promoter! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per BoojiBoy although keep important characters if any of them are significant to the game such as main characters. --דניאל ^{talk contribs Email} 03:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. AFD is not the right place to request a merge.JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist separately: There are simply too many articles with too many different variables here for us to consider them all together. Some characters obviously need to be merged back to the list or another article (such as captain placeholder). Other characters are obvious keeps (such as Grom, Jaina, Uther Sargeras, etc).
  • Comment it would be better if you point out which characters are "obvious keeps" and why, so I can withdraw the nom for just them. I hardly think most, a majority, or even many of these characters are major characters. I personally have no taste for 49 separate AfDs on Warcraft characters. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Separate AfD's runs the risk of inconsistent outcomes. Propose subsections for those articles where a special argument may be made. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a list. Many of these characters are mentioned in various print publications apart from the games: Archimonde, Arthas Menethil, Balnazzar, Grom Hellscream, Gul'dan, Illidan Stormrage, Jaina Proudmoore, Kel'Thuzad, Malfurion Stormrage, Mannoroth, Medivh, Orgrim Doomhammer, Prince Kael'thas, Sargeras, Sylvanas Windrunner, Tichondrius, Tyrande Whisperwind, Uther the Lightbringer. And yes, separate AfDs do run the risk of inconsistent outcomes, but if you want to make a policy page, go make one and debate it and achieve consensus. Otherwise, you should delete an article based on its own indivudal merits, not merely because of an attempt to establish some sort of policy/precedent. --Hetar 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right, below are individual subsections for each of the 18 characters in your list. Please either add the reliable sources for notability of these characters to these articles, or list these sources in this AfD, comprehensively or article-by-article. This AfD is not an attempt to create policy; my note is merely a warning that the outcome will be cited as precedent. No extra policy or guidelines are necessary for this nomination, in my opinion. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Precisely my opinion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said before, these articles deserve separate nominations so that they can be deleted or kept on their own merit, and not because someone wants to establish some sort of precedent. Also, it should be noted that we don't delete articles simply because they don't cite their sources, many articles are kept so that we can take the time and effort necessary to source them properly. --Hetar 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you are misreading the nomination. That this AfD will be cited as precedent is a statement of what I expect will be the case, because of which I warn participants to carefully consider their votes. The reasons for the deletion were clearly specified in the nomination; nowhere have I listed establishing a precedent as a reason for deletion. As to unsourced articles, WP:V (from WP:RS) is a core policy here. The week long AfD process will give interested editors plenty of time to add support for the keep votes with proper sourcing, which will increase the objective quality of these articles independently of the outcome of this AfD. I suspect we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion on the means used in this AfD, so let us agree to disagree as long as you accept my reasons for what they plainly state, not as a cover for a hidden motive. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yet another baseless attack on gaming. Why not delete every single character from every single book, movie, tv show in history as well?Macktheknifeau 06:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The entire Warcraft storyline should be one article. --Chris Griswold 06:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Coment And while we are at it, let us delete everything on Wikipedia associated with other major books, films, games etc. I could compile a list if you want, of every universe created that has articles seperate from the main story line article. Havok (T/C/c) 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Chris, I understand that you're heavily involved in editing comic book articles here on wikipedia. Would you support reducing every Superman character and every X-man onto one page? Because that's essentially what you're suggesting.JoshWook 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Non notable? I have no idea what you mean by that seeing as they are well known to over 6 million people who actually play WoW, not to mention the people who play Warcraft.. merging is out of the qestion as many of the characters are big articles. And they are all good articles, stating non notability seems to be the only weapon you deltionists have against these articles. As I have stated a billion times before, even if you don't see pressidence for notability, does not make it any less notable for everyone else who have even a remotly idea what this is. And also, they are here to educate people who want to know more about the Warcraft universe. If you want to delete these, I'll go on a AfD spree and nominate every article associated with The Lord of the Rings, Marvel Universe, DC Comics, The Simpsons and so forth. This is perhaps one of the silliest AfDs I have seen in a long time. Havok (T/C/c) 06:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this was not an indiscriminate list of all Warcraft character articles. See, for example, Thrall (Warcraft), which was not nominated because the article asserts that he is a main character, and my brief perusal of the articles in Category:Warcraft books convinced me that he was a major character. Please also note that notability is not the sole reason: amount of detail, and verifiability from reliable sources of the contents of the articles are others. If you want a good yardstick, compare Archimonde with Link (The Legend of Zelda series), a featured article on a video game character. Observe the amount of attention in the latter paid to citing a wide range of sources, and assertions of notability outside the Zelda fandom. I am willing to accept that some of the nominated (but not a majority or even a large portion of them) might meet the threshold of "major character", but short of becomming a seasoned Warcraft player overnight I have no way of verifying it. The articles certainly give me no clue how I might verify if some character is a major character or not. Of course, if you still choose to see this as an attack on gaming articles, i.e., a bad faith nom, then I am sure your opinion will be noted by the closing admin. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Umm... Archimonde is a major character.. And why do you AfD when you have no knowledge of the subject at hand? Shouldn't it be up to the editors who actually work on these articles to decide if they are verifiable or not? Deleting them won't give us any chance to state reliability, verifiability or even work with the articles. And yes, I do see it as a bad faith nomiation, because you state yourself that you have no knowledge of the subject. I have no knowledge about anything relating to LotR other then what I have seen in the movies, does that mean I can go and AfD every character bio on Wikipedia for that lore, stating "I have no knowledge of this, so therfor it must be right of me to delete them." Hiding behind WP:RS and WP:V is all good, but not if you have no chance yourself to state WHY the characters are not major. From the list you compiled I see most of them as major characters in the lore of Warcraft, which is also the reason they have their own article, and deleting them would be foolish. What you could have done instead of this AfD was to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft and ask us to verify them before you nominate them, you could have started a dialoge with the community behind these article, and not just outright AfD them. Havok (T/C/c) 07:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be clear, I see no problem with you going through the list of LotR character articles and nominating the unsourced (or improperly sourced) and unverifiable articles on non-notable characters of interest only to LotR fans for deletion. If your nomination is well-argued, I will support it. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep in mind WP:POINT. Going on an "AFD spree" as you put it will likely result in it being labeled a bad-faith nom and a strong warning, maybe even a block. Just because these articles might get deleted doesn't give you the rationle to nominate every other similar article for deletion. Hbdragon88 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If these articles are deleted on the basis that you don't find them to be anything major, it so absolutly gives me the right to do so with other "lesser known" characters, places etc. from other lores. This AfD for me will set precedence for other articles of the same type. If the nominator can state "I have no idea what this is about, but I feel myself that X, Y, Z, is not a major character and should therefor be deleted from Wikipedia." why can't I do the same? It's all in the eye of the beholder, he dosn't see this as anything major, but it is for many of us, and AfDing it in my book is just disrespectful if you have no grasp on the subject matter. Havok (T/C/c) 07:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If you think this is a bad faith nom, report it at WP:AN. If if it is a bad-faith nom, the sysops deal with it, and let them punish him. Don't get yourself in trouble if the sysops agree with him and don't believe it's a bad-faith nom or if they decide that the decision is delete. So what if he isn't familiar with the subject matter? What, is owning the game and being immersed in the whole atmosphere a requirement now to edit and make informed decisions about the status of the articles? He should, as an outsider, be able to discern from the article why the subject of the article is notable, and if he can't, then it should either be reworked to make it notable or be deleted. He has chosen the latter path. Hbdragon88 08:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note these names appear in the Warcraft 3 game, not WoW, to my knowledge.--Paraphelion 07:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them are mentioned in WoW aswell. And I did write both WoW and Warcraft. Havok (T/C/c) 07:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep IV : The Voyage Home Years from now a space-born relative of the humpback whale will return to earth and may ask for this information or else its ceaseless cries will destory our planet. It would bode well for the human race to have this kind of information all in one place.--Paraphelion 07:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Restated I like the idea that a first time visitor to wikipedia might use the random page feature and it will bring up a bio about some obscure fantasy character that is longer than a bio for some nobel prize winners. That to me is the magic of Wikipedia and what it is all about.--Paraphelion 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per well-researched nom. Sure is a terrible thing that no one seems to want to believe in WP policies and guidelines. Good luck with the whale thing. Tychocat 08:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the nominator has withdrawn all comments, please state your rationale for deletion or your comment may be disregarded. JoshWook 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : Just because the nominator withdrew his comments why must everyone here who has stated they agree with the original nomination restate their rationale for deletion? Just because someone changes their mind doesn't mean everyone else who had similar notions has to confirm theirs.--Paraphelion 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The nominator did more than "change his mind" in this case - he was accused on multiple fronts of making a bad faith nomination. In that light, any votes that reference the nomination must qualify why they believe the articles should be deleted, aside from "per nom," when the nominator himself has expressed reservations about the AFD.JoshWook 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment However he did not admit to a bad faith nomination, as you of course know becasue as he states at the top, he removed his nomination merely because it became a brawl. Your threat to discount all votes unless they are restated is laughable.--Paraphelion 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist separately Someof these (like Grom Hellscream) are major characters. Some should be merged into something like List of minor Warcraft characters. This AfD has about zero chance of determining which is which. Ace of Sevens 08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: as mentioned above, I have offered to withdraw the nomination of any characters that can be shown to be "major characters" using verifiable information. An unsourced summary of the plot as written by an editor doesn't count as evidence for notability, I am afraid. 49 separate AfDs will be killed outright as WP:POINT or something similar, and I certainly don't have the energy to tend to 49 separate discussions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all A good number of these should be kept. If any need to be merged to a minor characters list, AfD isn't the place to handle it, but none should be deleted. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) gives no basis for a deletion, only merge. Ace of Sevens 22:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the fact that the articles are not currently sourced properly is no reason to delete them. The Warcraft universe is propably the most notable universe in computer gaming. Many published books have been written about this universe which could potentially be used as reliable sources. The nominator states that he has no knowledge of this topic and the thing to do here would have been to start a dialogue with the WikiProject, not dump everything in this AfD. This is just further evidence that there are many Wikipedians who look contemptuously at video game content and what they consider "fancruft". This is not fancruft, this is not "gameguide". If this had not been from a video game but from the Lord of the Rings or the Simpsons, this would never have been allowed to come this far: Ajaxfan 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Again, the reason is not solely verifiability. The characters have to be shown to be notable. Read WP:CRUFT. A notable character is not notable solely because of internal plot-related reasons. A fictional character must have real world notability. The character must be known outside the fandom. Currently I see no evidence of this as everything I have been able to find about a character such as Aegwynn, to take a random example, keeps revolving around the WoW fansites (or Wikipedia and mirrors). The published books you speak of are guides for the game, or novelizations of the game. Again I note the comparison to Link (The Legend of Zelda series), which I am increasingly coming to see as the ideal game character article. Is Aegwynn equally notable? Is Orgrim Doomhammer? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude... WP:CRUFT is an essay not a guideline or policy. It cannot be used as the basis for an argument for deletion. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and WP:CRUFT is not my sole rationale. Essays can be illuminating even if they are not policies or guidelines. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe you should read an actual guideline like WP:FICT The first two points cover why AfD is not appropriate. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The nom has failed to assert a valid reason for deletion. I checked a dozen of the pages randomly I saw no use of WoWWiki as a reference, directly refuting a claim of the nom. The indiscriminate collection of information applies to lists, by the way. If anything should be a game guide a simple edit should suffice. In regards to sourcing video game characters, the games themselves are a source. If you wish to go as far as citation, I have created ((cite video game)). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I provided an example of a WoWWiki citations in the nomination. Hakkar the Soulflayer. You can go through the rest by yourself, I hope. The game, being a primary source, is only usable as a source for the plot. It doesn't qualify as a source for notability, which is a critical opinion of a character and requires secondary sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Your examples are non-existant: the 4 (Balnazzar, Hakkar the Soulflayer, Sylvanas Windrunner& Zul'jin) articles that have a WowWiki link do so in the external links! Not as a direct reference. And being that Wikipeida and WoWWiki are both GFDL licensed, of course there is going to be some identical text. That is the whole purpose of the license. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does anyone even read WP:FICT before taking this route. To clarify Wikipedia guidelines specifically state "Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character)." Its the first point on WP:FICT. Its obvious the person nominating these has no knowledge of Warcraft lore to say Archimonde is not a major character or Illidan or Grom Hellscream Tichondrius, Uther or Kel'Thuzad, Arthas Menethil is so notable to lore there is a town named after him, this is obvious a bad faith nomination, and prescedence is going to lead to people nominating characters from Harry Potter and Da Vinci Code for deletion soon as the main characters there have articles written about them. How about the Sopranos? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not only do I have no knowledge of Warcraft lore, I have no way to verify them except by becoming a dedicated Warcraft player. You are free to nominate unsourced (or poorly sourced) characters from Harry Potter that are non-notable and only interesting to Harry Potter fans for deletion. If the nomination is well argued, I see no reason not to support it. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 10:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment::That's the spirit! Come see me on the Argent Dawn server when you have a few hours to spare and I will take you through a quick tour of highlights in WoW which will assure you of their importance in the game. It would go a long way to covering my in-game expenses if you could buy a about 50 gold from a reputable outfitter such as http://www.dgamesky.com/.--Paraphelion 10:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You sir are wrong again, as per point 2 in WP:FICT, which I am asking you now to read. "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles." So in any case this should never have been put up for deletion as it should have been put up for merging if you feel they are non notable minor cahracters. This AfD should be closed, its breaking the very first two rules that deal with Fictional characters. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Characters in the Sopranos routinely engage in acts of bad faith.--Paraphelion 10:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per WP:FICT. I personally think World of Warcraft is crap, but this kind of nomination is silly: deleting every article here would justify cleaning out tens of thousands of other fiction-related articles from TV series, movies, and the like simply because they "weren't notable enough in the real world." While one has to take notability into account when keeping or deleting articles, this kind of deletionism is not going to get Wikipedia anywhere. If you want to merge some of the less notable characters, clean out the unverified information so that the articles are short enough to merge, don't ask AfD to do it for you. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and condense into a single list bar any major characters. Combination 10:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For everyone's convenience I will post the appropriate WP:FICT policies here with emphasis added:
  • Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).
  • Fiction includes books, TV series, films, computer games and roleplaying games, and possibly other sources.
  • Major characters from major works deserve their own article.

— Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. If someone wants to take on the task of merging these then they don't need to do it via afd. Otherwise these are more than notable enough to be kept, as far as fictional universes go. —Xezbeth 10:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep If we have pages for every single Pokémon (more than 300), then we can certainly have pages for all Warcraft characters, they are far less than those cute little monsters... Shandris^{the azylean} 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Warcraft is not just "WoW". World of Warcraft is just a game based on the long established universe that is Warcraft. The legacy of Warcraft is akin to many other works, such as Tolkien's Middle Earth. Warcraft spawns books, video games, board games, clothing, and other things related to the fiction works. To say all the character profiles should be removed is ridiculous.--Ndrfx 05:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: section on individual challenges moved to talk.
• Keep - Should a bunch of these be merged together? Yes. Is that something for AfD? No. Nominating 30 articles at a time never works out well. There's no way to go through and say this one is notable, that one isn't, etc. Trying to set a precedent by nominating a mass of articles is almost WP:POINT. --PresN 15:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Once Kaustav's comments are gone, I don't see how this discussion could possibly have been considered to be "heading fairly close to a delete consensus". If these articles are simply deleted, then it opens the door to deleting pretty much every fictional character from wikipedia. This is a compilation of the major and supporting characters from an extremely notable video game series; the precedent this would set would be chilling. We might as well say goodbye to Harry_Potter_(character) and Luke_Skywalker, if fictional characters are not worthy of the attention of wikipedia. WP:FICT is pretty clear - major characters get their own pages, and minor characters should be merged into a list. And yes, video games fall under those guidelines, unless we want to have a discussion on if video games are an inherently inferior medium. Even if some of the characters in this AFD are believed to be relatively minor, AFD is NOT the appropriate medium to debate their notability relative to one another in preparation for a merge. That can be done elsewhere. If the quality of the articles is a problem, then please, help fix them - but there's no reason to set a precedent of deleting every fictional character from wikipedia. JoshWook 17:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - many of the characters are also part of Wc3 which does not have its own wiki and therefore a delete would cause all information about these characters to be lost from people only interested in Wc3 and not WoW. eventine 17:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more bleak is the prospect of people only interested in WC3 and not WoW and not Wikipedia - the information would be totally lost to them as well. If only we could somehow find this demographic and ensure they are made aware in some other way.--Paraphelion 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I feel that the fiction represented by these characters and the universe in which they reside is notable enough for them to merit their own articles. I'm sure there's a legitimate reason, but I find it interesting that some people on Wikipedia strongly consider many computer game articles as 'cruft', even while other people have found the means to make Bulbasaur a featured article.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I, a very long time ago, worked on several Starcraft-related pages which were later deleted. I wasn't too happy about that, but I completely understand that 'Starcraft battlecruiser' (for example) is probably comfortably in that obscurity/cruft zone. I cannot say the same for the character pages nominated here. AustinZ 03:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with cleanup - currently all the articles appear to be OR. They all need to be tagged for verification, and if reliable sources can't be found, then they should be deleted. There are enough Warcraft fans here that these articles should be able to be verified (if that is possible) within 5 days. Once that is done, they'll be safe from deletion. -Mako 21:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does OR mean? Shandris^{the azylean} 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OR is original research, which I do believe to be a problem in some of these articles, but one which is fixable through good editing.JoshWook 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The source for the articles are the games themselves. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Writing an article based on one's observations of a game is the very definition of original research. Kafziel 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its not from observations, its fromt he story of the game itself. the story is told in the manual, in the game, and in seperate books. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then those separate books need to be cited. Kafziel 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Correct but since the manual is also cited, it means the content is sourced. Also what is proper cite format for a videogame? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's clearly a lot of information here that is not specifically covered in the game manual. I don't know about Wikipedia's format, but APA has standards for citing computer software (as is the case, I'm sure, with every other modern style guide). Kafziel 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Can you give me some examples of things not in the manual? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Various trivia sections, quotes, and presumed etymologies of the character names, among other details. Kafziel 12:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Most trivia sections arent sourced, as its trivia ... Please tell me you do actually have the manual and arent guessing about what is and isnt in it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Unsourced trivia is still unsourced. As for the manual, anyone can see what's in it. [1]
                      • Comment So how would you propose we source this information? It's all written in the books, the RPG books, much of it is on the official site, some in the manual and most in the game itself. Havok (T/C/c) 13:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gamecruft. Kafziel 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Coment Please define your reasoning for calling this "gamecruft". Share with me your vast knowledge on the subject. The fact that you call it gamecruft, when in reality Warcraft is just as much lore as Lord of the Rings, or Marvel Universe (both of whom are not games first and formost).
  • It's gamecruft because nobody that doesn't play the games will care. That's what cruft is. The Lord of the Rings and Marvel comics are both many decades older than Warcraft, and have a much more established place in literature and culture as a whole. Kafziel 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fictional character from the game was featured on Jeopardy, I think your assumption that "nobody that doesn't play the games will care" is pretty incorrect. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you, you just made your entire vote void. Now go read WP:NPOV and leave the game articles alone. Stating that something is "older" does not make something less notable. The Warcraft-series of games are one of the most successful franchises in the world of gaming, and have won many awards in mainstream press. [2] Havok (T/C/c) 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To make the point more clear, would anyone who didn't read Marvel comics / watch Marvel movies care about the characters? Icewolf34 13:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please read WP:FICT Would anyone who did not watch X movie, read X book, case for X character from that? Luckily that is not how it works here. WP:FICT will help yuo see the propsed guidelines relating to fictional characters. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I'm familiar with the guidelines. Particularly the one that says the articles for these minor characters could have been merged without any discussion at all. Consensus has already been reached on the importance of some other works of fiction, and this isn't the forum for discussing those. Kafziel 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good then you should be well aware that AfD is the wrong medium to seek merging of minor characters and that major characters get their own articles as per points 1 and 2 of WP:FICT. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Exactly. Hence if these are deleted because people "simply don't care" I'll start nominating Lord of the Rings articles seeing as I don't care about them. No, I'm not going to do that, because I resepct that people do find that interesting, and the whole point of an Encylopedia is to teach people new things, and if only one person learns something, or get's some re-newed knowledge about the subject, then it's all good. Simply having your attitude Kafziel would only pull Wikipedia down. This has become somewhat of a catch phrase with me, but Even if you don't see the value of it, there are people out there who do find value in it. Havok (T/C/c) 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • First of all, this is not a "vote". Secondly, whether or not my opinion is "void" is not at your discretion. In fact, you clearly missed my point: the examples you gave are more valid not because they are older but because they "have a much more established place in literature and culture as a whole". Yes, that established place in culture can come with age, but age was not my reason for deleting these articles. These are characters from video games, and nobody else is interested in them. Six million people (the supposed number of Warcraft players, according to your entry above) is a drop in the bucket compared to the readership of Lord of the Rings and Marvel comics. That's what makes this cruft. This is nothing personal; I vote the same way on articles about minor Star Wars characters, Dragon Ball Z characters, etc. Kafziel 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • These characters reaching 6 million people is more notable then the names of most towns we have articles on in Wikipedia oddly enough. Also you still have not shown that any of these characters are not known, some of them are main characters and as per WP:FICT specifically get their own articles when they do not fit in the main article. The minor characters get merged into one article, further making this the wrong place to seek merging and making deletion wrong all together. Again, please read the very frist two points of WP:FICT. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not the one who nominated this for deletion. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also your treatment of some fictional works as "less then" others is quite disturbing. Do you plan to have Da Vinci Code characters deleted next? Who are they notable to outside of the readership or movie watchers? What is the circulation of X-Men comics anyway these days? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I might support deleting characters from The Da Vinci Code, yes. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of curiousity, what determines "more established" in your opinion? I'm genuinely curious, I haven't decided which way I swing on this articles yet. Icewolf34 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A simple test would be to walk up to a random stranger and say, "Have you ever heard of Spider-Man? Have you ever heard of Anub'arak?" Another simple test is to see how prevalent the given storyline is in other media. Tolkein's stories and the Marvel Comics universe have been covered in books, comics, cartoons, film, video games, and even music. None of these are strict criteria for inclusion, but there is no official policy regarding notability. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• However, wouldn't you agree that a random stranger wouldn't have heard of, say, Wizard (Marvel Comics), or a number of other minor Marvel characters...? I do appreciate the clarification, though. Icewolf34 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Being known by the general public is a pretty bad standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia. There are lots of things that I've never heard of in the Brittanica, much less some random moron on the street. Actually, chuck the Brittanica. Do you realize that there are more specialized encyclopedias out there, covering topics ranging from religion, science, or the occult? Go to your library and look, and see if you've heard of everything in those. JoshWook 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduce Just some ideas. I think most of the characters on this list, in all actuality can be deleted. Most are just extra information that can be found on WoWWiki (as stated above). There are a few that, in my opinion, should be kept. Capt. Placeholder for example is a very unique character in WoW and borders on meme status. If only one out of the whole list was to be kept, he would be the one. Another possible criteria for deletion could be "stub status". Any of the above mentioned characters that are marked as stubs should be deleted, but the others left. Seeing as most of the articles on the list are stubs, this would reduce its numbers, but keep the prevalent articles. Finally, I think all city/race leaders’ articles can be kept as they are important characters not only to WoW, but to the entire Warcraft universe. Their individual histories are important to the canon of Warcraft. On top of that, they are not "enemies" and therefore would not merit sections based on strategies or loot tables. OrcShaman42 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why does everyone assume it's WoW we are talking about, they are Warcraft characters, and Warcraft goes beyond WoW. Captain Placeholder could just as well be merged into the World of Warcraft article. As for your proposal; a majority of the characters are major to the lore of Warcraft, and should be kept. For this AfD to be fair, each character should be nominated individualy. Havok (T/C/c) 14:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the scope of this AfD entry may have been too broad. It might be tedious, but might also be helpful to list the articles separately. Some of these characters may be more notable than others. Kafziel 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Capt. Placeholder lies outside of Warcraft lore. He is not a part of the canon, but rather a humorous character that was spawned songs, websites, etc. With full respect for Kafziel's comment below, merging Capt. Placeholder into the WoW article is as inappropriate as merging the Leroy Jenkins article into it (WoW). As such, I firmly believe that Capt. P should be removed from this list entirely (without an AfD decision being made) and, possibly, posted as a separate AfD. OrcShaman42 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduce per above. --Peephole 14:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many of these characters are important to the warcraft universe. When i say warcraft universe i dont only mean WoW. People like Sargeras,Jaina Proudmore,Arthas,Thrall,Medivh are main characters in the story of warcraft III not to mention they also appear in world of warcraft or at least mentioned. If your gonna delete those entries then you might as well delete the entries for the characters of Harry Potter or Lord of the rings. If you consider 6 million people as "a drop in the bucket" then i should go ahead and delete many articles about anime characters who have far less viewership — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.212.98 (talk • contribs)

• User's first post. Kafziel 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't make it any less true. Illidan Stormrage is about as important to the Warcraft series as Severus Snape is to Harry Potter. Furthermore, Snape's article does *not* currently cite its sources. Now, would the best option be to a) tag the article for cleanup, b) cite the article yourself if you're able, or c) AFD it because you don't like Harry Potter? I choose a or b. JoshWook 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Man, if I had a nickel for every AfD where somebody used a different crappy article as a reason why the crappy article in question should be kept, I'd be a rich man. Why can't anyone ever argue for an article based on its own merits, rather than calling out the myriad other examples of cruft they find? This AfD is not about X-Men, or Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, or anime, or The Da Vinci Code, or anything else. If those categories contain equally unsourced and non-notable subjects, feel free to nominate them for AfD (without being disruptive, of course). The simple fact that these other articles exist does not imply tacit acceptance on my part. If you feel other articles are equally insignificant or poorly written, feel free to nominate them. Kafziel 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm, that's how votes go about. The outcome of this AfD will sett precedence for others like it. We have given you lots of reason for it's inclusion and reason to stay, but you ignore them and follow your own aggenda, you even state that you don't care, and yet you continue to argue. Please read WP:CIVIL. Havok (T/C/c) 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, the old CIVIL card. The last refuge of every editor who can't win a discussion any other way. Funny how it never seems to apply to the person who ends up using it. [3] I continue to reply to your questions because this is not a vote. Some Warcraft fans evidently feel that they can bully other users into quitting, but that won't work on me. I will defend myself all day if need be. I shouldn't have to, because I gave clear reasons for my position, but if you are intent on making snide comments to every user who argues for deletion, then I'll be compelled to reply. Kafziel 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have not given clear reasons. All you've done above is describe the articles as "cruft" and then claimed non-notability, without saying what standards of notability are appropriate, except that every random stranger should have knowledge of the subject (not a widely held view of what should be inclusive in a good encyclopedia). You're not being bullied - all that's being asked for is specifically citing valid policy for deletion. WP:CRUFT is not, and never has been, and never will be, grounds for deletion. JoshWook 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I'm not being bullied. You don't have the capacity to bully me. But other editors have been bullied (the nominator, most obviously), and I won't stand for it. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will not. That would blatant bad faith on my part - if you feel that these articles are bad, it is *your* responsibility to AFD those articles. Your attempt to get me to do it was an attempt to catch me making a WP:POINT and be chastised for it. My reason for the comparison is that while I think that these articles and the Snape article contain some OR and need cleanup, the existence of a Snape article is not a problem in and of itself. But, AFD is not the place to say that articles need cleanup or merging - it's a judgement on whether wikipedia should cover certain subjects. Did you even read WP:FICT? JoshWook 16:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, Josh, I specifically told you not to violate POINT, and even put in the link to it. You're all giving me other examples of crappy articles and saying, "Well, if we have that one, we should have this one". Your logic is flawed, though, because I never said I thought we should have those other ones. You're making the assumption that I think Snape is worthy of an article, when I never said I did. Kafziel 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What exactly is your opinion then? Should fictional characters be covered at all on wikipedia? If the answer is no, then I think you'll find that your opinion is supported nowhere in wikipedia policy or precedent. JoshWook 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some should, yes. It largely depends on WP:V and WP:NOR, both of which this article fails. I think you will find that your opinion is supported nowhere in policy either, as there is no official policy regarding notability. There are guidelines, but not policies. As for precedents, those are set here. Kafziel 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please read WP:FICT The first two points are most relevant here, thank you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Believe me, I've read it. I've done a lot of work on fiction articles (and videogame articles, for that matter) and I'm well aware of the guideline. But it's a guideline, not a policy, and any user may choose to disregard it if he or she feels an exception may be made. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • • Can you show me the policy that states fictional characters need to meet WP:V and notability independently from their own main article, even though they are being split because they size of the article not their own notability. See what you fail to understand is that WP:FICT states to give them their own articles, not because they are notable characters to the world, or that they deserve their own articles without an article on the main story but, because there is no room in the main article and we work with article size contraints. So notability and WP:V are not applicable here, these arent really articles on their own because they meet policy, they are articles on their own cause they do not fit in the main article. Which is why I keep telling you to read WP:FICT. Because it states you can off shoot articles for main characters when the main article gets too big, and states nothing of them needing to be article worthy on their own, because then there would be really no point to stating you can create seperate articles for them, cause that would be common sense if they were already notable to the world and verifiable outside of the media in which the fictional character exists. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I will say again, there is no policy on notability. There are guidelines. And what the guideline actually says is that characters can be broken off into their own articles if the information is encyclopedic. I contend that this is not encyclopedic, because in order for information to be encyclopedic at Wikipedia it must be notable, verifiable, and obtained from a trustworthy source. What the guideline recommends is combining them on one page, such as List of characters from The Sopranos in the DiMeo Crime Family. Kafziel 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • • That is for minor characters, again read WP:FICT, this is my last reply to you as it seems you are just refusing to acknowledge WP:FICT at all which is odd since your example is a list of minor characters being put on a page as per WP:FICT. Again they are minor characters, which is point 2 of WP:FICT, now just acknowledge point 1 and we are all done. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • And I will say to you again that WP:FICT is not a policy. It's a suggestion. There are no hard and fast criteria to decide which characters are major and which are minor. Who decides that? Fans of the genre? Fans of that particular universe? Fans of that specific character? The Sopranos list came to mind because the Sopranos community had a problem with a fan who absolutely insisted that a certain character was "major". The line is not black and white as you are trying to make it seem. In cases such as that (and such as this), whether or not a character is "major" is subject to consensus, which is what we are trying to reach here. Kafziel 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • • • I think you have everything mixed up then, this is not the appropriate venue for you to find out who is a major character, and putting them all up for deletion in an attempt to is completely against the purpose of AfD. Perhaps you should read up what AfD is used for, but its not for merging, or for finding out what characters are major and which are not. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • You seem to be mixed up, because I didn't put any of these up for deletion. You managed to bully that poor guy into silence. I just happened to agree with him, and I was willing to put up with many kilobytes more bullshit than he was. AfD is actually used for merging quite often. You'll know that after you spend a bit more time here. I do agree with you, though, that it's not for determining whether characters are minor or major. I think they're minor, therefore cruft, and that's really the end of it as far as my stance is concerned. Kafziel 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Please do not address me again since you seem to be resorting to baseless accusations after failing to prove via the appropriate guidelines that this AfD is appropriate. Have a good day and please be more civil in the future. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • • As for your comment "AfD is actually used for merging quite often" I leave you with a wonderful quote "To which I responded that that doesn't mean it's okay." --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have given no evidence to show that every sentence of these (not this, there are several being considered here) articles (which would be required for a deletion instead of a merge) is original research. Provide that. JoshWook 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Maybe not to you (I don't have to repeat myself to every editor who disagrees with me) but I did give examples to Zer0faults in an earlier thread. I didn't say every sentence was original research, but combined with WP:V they are pretty weak. Kafziel 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • • You didnt really provide evidence other then to say the trivia sections were OR, which I responded by telling you they usually are. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • To which I responded that that doesn't mean it's okay. Kafziel 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I hate to have to be the nanny, but can we keep stop the flaming/trolling and get back to the real issue please? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are not debating definitions of article types or WP essays, we are debating specific articles on the AfD list. There is no reason to drag this page on and on with selfish and wasteful personal attacks. Let's just get this over with, I know there are other things we would all like to be doing (maybe).— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:OrcShaman42 (talk • contribs)

• Comment I'd recommend closing this AfD and relisting the less notable ones for deletion. Consensus seems to be that we can't categorically delete each of these entries, so far as I can tell. Especially since the relevant deletion arguments are "WP:V and WP:NOR," which certainly can't be covered for every article at once. Icewolf34 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little more support for this stance: "In cases such as that (and such as this), whether or not a character is "major" is subject to consensus, which is what we are trying to reach here" is Kafziel's (very reasonable) position, which is again better served through discussion on individual pages. Icewolf34 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Completely agreed. Kaustauv was right in predicting a drawn-out, uncivil no consensus that would lead to nowhere. Any time more than a dozen articles of varying quality is put up for AFD, we're going to end up with nothing more than shouting matches. The reason for that is that trying to delete big portions of wikipedia en masse is an attempt to circumvent the policy-making procedure. If policy is to be changed, do it, because right now there is no policy that justifies deleting every one of these all at once simply because they are game characters. Otherwise look at each article one at a time and decide on its own merits. JoshWook 20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave it alone until someone decides they have time to merge it or care enough to merge the "minor" characters in to the main article they should be in. That entire "these other things have cultural importance, warcraft doesn't" seems a little weak. It's probably just that people have different levels of exposure to different sections of "culture". I think its better to leave this "cruft" if some people find it useful. Cackalacky is an example of this where Wikipedia having something minor was useful to me, even though some people on the discussion had never heard of it.Justbobdanish 21:05, 14 August 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.