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. Concerns regarding sourcing were not addressed. If the amount of storyline material, after taking attribution and WP:WAF into consideration, proves too large for those articles, creation of a separate 'storyline' article may be warranted, but I don't see any consensus that the sub-articles are called for at this time. Shimeru 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft storyline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This series of article presents an extreme amount of undue weight to Starcraft. They basically outline the story of Starcraft on a level-by-level, mission-by-mission scope, which is wholly unnecessary. Plot summaries must be succinct and kept as small as possible to provide major relevant details- not to detail every piece of a campaign. I believe the main articles Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War do a fine job as is summarizing the storyline- per WP:NOT #7, we should not simply be regurgitating plot summaries of a popular video game. While I usually hate bundling deletions, I feel these are all necessary:

• StarCraft Episode I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• StarCraft Episode II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• StarCraft Episode III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• StarCraft Episode IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• StarCraft Episode V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• StarCraft Episode VI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• StarCraft: Enslavers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brood War introduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wafulz 02:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 06:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I think one page on the Starcraft Storyline overall would be appropriate, given that with the creation of additional works in the series, it could be helpful to cover the otherwise acceptable material in one location. FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that article would do nothing other than serve as plot summary of overly great detail. The scale of the articles is a bit misleading- there are only two video games being involved here, and they don't need such a microscopic level of detail. Right now, the summaries in their articles seem sufficient. --Wafulz 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think part of the problem is that the article isn't covering the other Starcraft works. Believe it or not, Blizzard has commissioned authors to write novels set in the Starcraft universe. Each of which has its own article written pretty closely to the Episode articles you're pointing at. see here. I think I'd prefer something that covered the scope of the works in one article, though perhaps with a lot of restyling to try to bring things into a more suitable form. FrozenPurpleCube 05:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, these articles don't cover anything except for the in-game campaigns. No novels, no board games, no comics, nothing. It's strictly a rehashing of every level and bonus mission of the video game. --Wafulz 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what? I already said there may need to be a lot of restyling to bring these things into a more suitable form. I am not disagreeing with you that there is some cleanup necessary. I do think, however, the subject itself could be appropriately covered. Given that there's nothing obviously wrong about these pages, I don't see deletion is a necessary step. Editing and cleanup can fix things. FrozenPurpleCube 18:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's wrong with these pages is the content is an unneeded amount of detail and it is already nicely summed up in Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War. There's no need to provide an article dedicated entirely to the missions of a video game. --Wafulz 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It seems you are under the impression that I'm disagreeing with that particular concern? I am not. However, I am saying something which you seem to be missing. I am saying that because the Starcraft universe has expanded beyond the video game, because there are stories that are part of a cohesive whole, it might be worth considering an article connecting the various materials. FrozenPurpleCube 23:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • What you're suggesting isn't a merge though- it's creating an entirely new article. These articles don't incorporate anything other than the missions/bonus missions (ie, they don't cover the game's universe- just the game itself). --Wafulz 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (De-indenting somewhat). Yes, it would be a substantially different article than what's present now, certainly, but I do think the article name itself is fine, and that the content from the existing articles could be used to create part of the the article I'm thinking about. It'd be one thing if they were full of nonsense, but they're not, so I'll accept that there's some potential usage there. I suppose one could start over from scratch, but I see no reason to do that. FrozenPurpleCube 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, maybe transwiki to Wikibooks; The two respective sections on the main pages are more effective than the nine whole articles listed here. See also: WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and consider emptying much of ((StarCraft)), which I'm fairly convinced will never come close to the preceding guidelines. Nifboy 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Wikibooks as a possible candidate for having a rather detailed not-summary of plot (and characters, and planets). I'm not quite sure what the rules are over there, but things like this make me figure it's within their scope (and ignore this, since it was obvious gameguide material in an earlier incarnation). Nifboy 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- they're so detailed that they verge on copyvio. Novalis 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Only a summary is really needed, this isn't like the Star Wars movies. bibliomaniac15 05:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Story summary already in StarCraft article. These separate articles are simply extended summaries of a single game and its expansion. --Scottie_theNerd 05:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Scottie_theNerd. Scienter 12:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to a gaming wiki, smerge anything remotely useful to the main article, and delete the rest. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Bibliomaniac15. Acalamari 17:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too detailed to even count as summary. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Though these should probably be transferred to another wiki, as this content should probably be somewhere on the web, just not a general encyclopedia. The only way this could be more detailed if it was a transcript. There's already a good enough summary in the main article, so I don't think a tedious merge needs to be done. Wickethewok 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't a summary. This isn't an overview. This isn't a synopsis. This is a novelization. A summary this detailed is not appropriate, and StarCraft's plot summary is sufficient. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But Cleanup The article can be salvaged, but it needs to have the ridiculously specific information removed from it. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you propose we clean up and how do we remove specific details without making it a carbon copy of the plot summaries on other pages? --Wafulz 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously, this isn't a place for articles dedicated to plotlines. A transwiki to Wikibooks would be more ideal than a straight deletion that sees months or years of effort blown to shit. Plotlines of any notable media are within jurisdiction of the project, and there are no apparent barriers to migrate and adapt contents there. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 16:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]
  • Apparently there's a StarCraft Wikia with similar articles. No transwiki is required. Delete or merge. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 17:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]
• Merge all into StarCraft storyline. Please note that what's being proposed for deletion are not just the specific articles on each episode, but also the main StarCraft storyline article. I agree that there is too much detail, but given the notability and length of the work, one separate "storyline" article is appropriate. So, merge all into StarCraft storyline and then heavily trim them, leaving only the most important parts. -- Black Falcon 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this will primarily consist of deleting many paragraphs in their entirety, it should not take too much time. I am willing to do the merge and subsequent trimming if the consensus is judged to be "merge". -- Black Falcon 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why can't the plot of StarCraft be dealt with in an appropriate way in StarCraft? If we need more (and I disagree that we need more), we need it with the real-world context. If that's sufficient detail, we don't need more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • StarCraft has 10 or so episodes, I think. The current plot summary at StarCraft#Plot covers only the first three and it is already of medium length. Given how extensive the work is, I think a separate article for the StarCraft storyline to supplement a short summary in the main article is appropriate. If everything can concisely fit into the main article, that would be ideal (but is it plausible?). Still, that would require a highly selective merge rather than deletion. By the way, I love the piped link to your talk page: "conspire" ;) -- Black Falcon 06:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Starcraft has three episodes, Brood War has three episodes. Each article covers the three. The episodes aren't anything special either- it's just the name given to the Zerg/Terran/Protoss missions. --Wafulz 12:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh. Thanks for the clarification. I have changed my recommendation accordingly (see below). -- Black Falcon 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect 7, delete 2. Delete StarCraft: Enslavers, which seems to be just one campaign in one version, and Brood War introduction. Redirect episodes 1-3 to StarCraft and episodes 4-6 to StarCraft: Brood War. Redirect "StarCraft storyline" to StarCraft universe. The individual episode titles and "StarCraft storyline" are all plausible search terms. -- Black Falcon 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable, lengthy enough to warrant separate articles. Everyking 05:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - WP:NOT #7, as in: Wikipedia is not a textbook, faq, instruction manual, or collection of plot summaries. I'd also hope Wikipedia is not a gaming manual. I'd be happy if Black Falcon does a merge of what he feels is relevant info, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. The amount of detail for this game's story is ridiculous. There's longer pieces of fiction out there that doesn't even go near the level detail these articles cover. This doesn't help people who know nothing about StarCraft and doesn't help big fans of the game. Move to StarCraft wiki if someone doesn't want to lose this prose, but this stuff isn't suitable for WP. Mitaphane _?|! 04:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not remotely notable! No refs at all. NBeale 07:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. m:Wiki is not paper, although the WP:V argument isn't a bad one. Note that WP:NOT states that "a plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." As a side note, I haven't actively edited WP in a while (as my edit history will show) but I came to this page after reading with interest the articles in question and then noting the AFD tag above them. --Goobergunch|? 11:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - to me, Goobergunch, what you just said is a good reason to keep the page. I've also come to AfD because I originally saw an article I considered important that was tagged for deletion (well, already deleted, actually). Unfortunately, m:Wiki is not paper doesn't seem to have any success as an anti-deletion argument anymore. Anyway, what's your opinion that this sort of article should instead be at a StarCraft Wikia, as proposed above? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles aren't plot summaries. Plot summaries can already be found in the respective StarCraft articles. These chapter summaries almost transcribe the exact events of one game and its expansion, as well as a bonus campaign. They are so in-depth that they border on copyright infringement. --Scottie_theNerd 14:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. -- Wikipedia does not need to have restrictions on size, yes the story-line is long, but we aren't restricted by that. The plot is a very important part of the game and should have an equally important part of the starcraft series on wikipedia. MrMacMan 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story isn't long. The storyline articles above cover two games. Practically every game summarises plot information in a few paragraphs on the game page. There is no need to transcribe everything in the game onto Wikipedia; that would be copyright violation. --Scottie_theNerd 05:49, 1 April 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.