Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reputation in World of Warcraft

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. Since there's no clear target for redirection, request a merge copy from an admin if you want to transwiki/merge it. --Haemo 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation in World of Warcraft

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 21:34, 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]

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

Delete, no evidence of independent notability, as shown by lack of independent sources. shoy 18:04, 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]
  - Thousands of people have written books specifically about chess strategy, though. shoy 13:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hardly relevant enough to warrant its own article. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 18:56, 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]
Condense info, put into World of Warcraft and delete per arguments given already. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of merging it? It's a subsection that got too long, so it was split off into its own article. Simple as that. Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, game guide, I'm sure there must be a WOW wiki out there.Ridernyc 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a game guide, it's a game guide when it says "the best strategy to defeat boss X is (...)" or "if you're stuck at one point, you can continue by using (...)". This is merely information about the game. "Fancruft" is subjective, I consider articles on science "sciencecruft" since I am not interested in science, but I don't nominate those for deletion those either. See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And yes, there exists a WoW Wiki, but why move it there? Wikipedia is perfectly suited to have an article (and detailed subarticles) on World of Warcraft. Do you want to move all in-depth information on history to the history Wikia? Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply non-notable. David Fuchs^(talk) 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's perfectly notable, it's detailed information on a notable game, split off into its own article. Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – see my comments above; no valid rationale for deletion has been given, there's nothing wrong with this article. Valid information on a notable subject, split off into its own article. Melsaran (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Melsaran, your example of Chess strategy is flawed. There are plenty of books written on chess strategy to make it notable apart from the chess article. This article is an overly detailed gameguide-type explanation of a narrow aspect of the game. It is not notable enough to stand alone.--SeizureDog 11:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with detailed information on a notable subject, since this is merely a subarticle of World of Warcraft that got split off when a section became too long, per Wikipedia:Summary style. And it's not a gameguide, as I explained above. Melsaran (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - World of Warcraft is a notable subject. Reputation in World of Warcraft is not, and you still have yet to show otherwise. Following WP:SUMMARY you should just summarize the aspect of reputation, not ramble on about it for so long that it needs to be split off.--SeizureDog 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reputation in World of Warcraft is a part of World of Warcraft. It is essentially the same subject, but it is just detailed information on that subject. And no, WP:SUMMARY doesn't say you should summarise it, it says sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place. That is exactly what happened here. Melsaran (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - But only if its a notable enough subtopic to stand alone in the first place.--SeizureDog 12:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - By that logic, we would need an article on every single person in the world, since they are all part of notable entities (the Earth, countries, etc.). Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. shoy 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Information about a random person on Earth isn't relevant in an article about Earth, since these topics are not directly related. However, reputation in World of Warcraft is a certain aspect of World of Warcraft. It cannot be viewed independently of World of Warcraft, like how poker strategies cannot be viewed independently of poker. I explained in another AFD why WP:NOTINHERITED isn't applicable here, and I'll repost it here for convenience:

The notability of the concept is established because World of Warcraft is notable, and this is detailed information about a certain aspect of World of Warcraft that was split off the main article when the section became too long. WP:NOTINHERITED refers to things such as "she's the daughter of a notable politician so she is also notable" while the daughter hasn't been covered by reliable sources. The daughter is a different subject than the politician; details on the daughter's life are not details on the politician's life. Merging the biography of the daughter with the article on the politician wouldn't be a plausible option, since it would become a coatrack (covering things about other, related subjects instead of covering the subject itself). That is not the case with this article, since it is detailed information on a certain aspect of World of Warcraft, and not on a subject related to World of Warcraft. This information could also be integrated into the main article, but it has been split off and became a subarticle.

Regards, Melsaran (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED is not as narrow as you're saying it is. It does not apply only to the likes of relations of notable people in biography articles, but to anything related to a notable subject. See the example given about the radio station for example. WP:FICT makes it clear that sub-articles must prove their own notability independently of the parent article (Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability). Nowhere does policy or guideline say that sub-articles are exempt from notability requirements. Miremare 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The radio programme is a separate topic from the radio station, whilst reputation in World of Warcraft is an aspect of World of Warcraft and cannot be seen independently from World of Warcraft. Please read this comment in a related AFD. Melsaran (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very selective interpretation you're making - a radio programme is part of what makes the radio station - it's what radio stations do - just as elements of WoW are part of the game. I notice you left out the salient part of the WP:FICT line you quoted, that "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability". And from further down WP:FICT: "If the article becomes too long and a split would create a sub-article on a subject that is not individually notable, then the content should be trimmed." Miremare 21:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 15:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - That argument only holds water if poker strategy isn't a notable subject. But it is. shoy 18:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WoWWiki then smerge to World of Warcraft. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim down and merge back in the WoW article. I don't think this kind of mechanics in any game is notable enough to merit being extended more than a few lines in the main article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article isn't really a direct subarticle of World of Warcraft so much as it is a subarticle of "Elements of gameplay in World of Warcraft." Take this to GameFAQs or WoW Wiki, but not an encylopedia. It would not be acceptable as a section of World of Warcraft, and is certainly not acceptable as a stand-alone article. This is game guide material in that it details how a specific mechanic of a game works. It doesn't relate this game mechanic to the real world at all. --Phirazo 16:50, 19 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.