- 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. Sole reason for keeping is an accusation of bad faith (itself bad faith by definition). Neil ☎ 11:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ysera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Doctorfluffy has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. [1] Edward321 04:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources demonstrating notability. --Gavin Collins 13:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator appears to have a serious agenda since they talk of nominating over 100 articles for deletion, which will overwhelm the system. Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 04:06, 10 November 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.