Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europa (warcraft)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was delete, delete, delete. Mailer Diablo 06:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europa (warcraft)

[edit]

This looks like nn fancruft to me... What do you all think? Dakart 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question from Original Article Creator What does nn fancruft mean... many people I know on warcraft appreciate this article.. besides it was made yesterday so give me time it's my first article, I'm trying to make it nice. Specifically though this article is appreciated by Clan xEHU which is a thing I mentioned in the article, also tell me if it does not fit wikipedia standards and why please01:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks like Non- notable fancruft to me, but id does look well-done. Still... Fledgeling 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its been up for less then a day... besides its my first article and I'm trying to learn how to do this stuff. (still what does non-notable fancruft mean then..) Zach 02:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Oh yes, thanks for compliment I thought it would be crappy and it needs pictures. Hey wait a second I just found a Don't bite the newcomers policy >< Zach 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like you spent a lot of time and effort into it. Looks like it hasn’t been explained to you what non-notable and fancruft is, which isn’t fair to you. To he best of my knowledge, it means... that this was created by a fan and goes into too much detail for something that is relatively insignificant to the workings or parts of the game... um well I mean is that if “article may only be understandable by people who play Warcraft 3 or people who solely play the map itself and possibly StarCraft” that is very few people would be interested in unless you directly played the map, and if you did so, you probably know all of that anyway. Fledgeling 03:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: When your article starts with a disclaimer that says, "Note: this article may only be understandable by people who play Warcraft 3 or people who solely play the map itself and possibly StarCraft" you know you have a serious problem. While I recognize that this may be the creator's first attempt at creating an article, they should definately read WP:V and WP:RS, as well as WP:NOT. This type of an article is much more welcome over at Wowiki. --Hetar 02:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isnt related to World of Warcraft ...at all its for Warcraft 3, plus I put that there as a warning, it is a map specifically in that game only and I wouldn't want people to waste their time reading it then if they wouldn't be able to understand it (plus its not like it does anything bad to Wikipedia .. the article title specifically relates to Warcraft then a map inside of the game I doubt anyone else would need that same title for an article when they could just make edits to it because it would have to relate to the subject I'm talking about...Plus I don't think it would do any harm to you guys who want it deleted anyways.. Zach 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Hetar. I'm not biting, but you know it's got to go when an article outright states it can't be verified. Fluit

03:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    • I know of no known published source that could verify the article, plus people do NOT have to believe it. People of warcraft though could possibly use this article for tips on how to play the map. On warcraft though it generally seems though if a person is a noob at the game, and this map being complicated, they may get frustrated and not want to play it and could come to this and learn how to play. I'll put the believing statement in my disclaimer even more so people do not have to accept it as the outright truth. If they wish to truly know that it is correct they will do independent research. (Unsigned comment by ShadowZach)Oh, sorry I forgot that part its not really habit yet.. Is there something I could change in this article to make it fit Wikipedia standards?..I don't really understand why its been nominated for deletion.
  • Comment Could be useful to a small number of gamers. I'm sure you could find any number of free sites where you can post this freely. This is just the wrong place for something like that. Fan1967 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. --Terence Ong 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft. Fan1967 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again I ask what does fancruft mean and a new question now what does gamecruft mean.. I cannot reformat the article to meet the standards if I do not know what it means..Zach 03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Also, this is the only well-known source I know of that could be a home to this material, I have no idea of other sites that would welcome this length of information stated in that article.Zach 03:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy delete CSD A7. NN fancruft. Look up what "cruft" means on a regular dictionary, then attach that to "fan" and "game". Basically, a really really bad article that only fans could appreciate or that pertains to a game. There is no way for you to fix this, because this does not belong to Wikipedia since it violates our policies (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT). You also say it yourself: "this is the only well-known source I know of that could be a home to this material". Wikipedia is not your personal webspace; get a free one such as Geocities or find a friend who will host it for you, or shell out with your own money for it. Sorry that your first article turns out like this, but we are an encyclopedia that serves the greatest good to the greatest number of people. Your article simply is not notable enough to the general population to matter. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I looked it up in Wiktionary and still dont understand what it means.. does it mean false or something?Zach 04:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia has a nice article on fancruft, which explains it fairly clearly. A single custom map for a game falls under this to such an extent that I do not see why it should avoid deletion. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this should have probably taken place on talk pages, but oh well Wiktionary:cruft Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There are a decent amount of articles which are a specific custom map for Warcraft 3. Look under the popular map section in Warcraft 3And I do not see the ones I have looked at been suggested for deletion. I view this as hypocritical and also you guys are not telling me what exactly is wrong with my article. I have been a wiki-member for less then 2 days and yet you critisize my article without telling me exactly how to change it to make it fit the standards, also if you dislike it enough you will make the edits yourself. I've been trying to change it to fit what standards I know of but still receive delete comments.Zach 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC) I actually have gone through all the other maps section of warcraft 3 and find none of them but my own being recommended for deletion. They are all custom maps for a single game. The worse I found in a article was a cleanup request and a request to verify references. This is actually relevant to my article but it was actually recommended for deletion while the other was not.Zach 04:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But you see, that's the POINT. We CAN'T edit it because we DON'T KNOW ANYTHING about it since it is so non-notable. We are telling you what is exactly wrong with the article. We are deleting it because it's the SUBJECT MATTER that is the problem here, not merely the article itself. Thus, you cannot change anything about it. We understand that you are a new user and we are not criticizing you for this. We want to help you understand this process; however, despite the fact that you are a new member, the article must go. If you want, I can make a WP:POINT and nominate all of the other articles for deletion. Actually, that would not be a bad idea, considering they all probably violate the same principles. I'll look into it tomorrow. *Yawn* I'm going to sleep now Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:V and WP:V. I've elaborated on talk:Europa (warcraft). Gerry Ashton 04:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give it Time I understand your arguments but you must understand this was requested for deletion for less then a day it was created and less then a day I made an account for Wikipedia. During the time I have left over from school, sleep, and other activites/responsibilities I do not have much time to work on the ariticle and make it acceptable to what little amount of standards I have learned in a very short amount of time. I will try to work on it to make it acceptable but I simply think it was requested for deletion to quickly and I will accept and consider requests that may be done to the article; if you think I will put your requested part in the article in a wrong way you can simply add it yourself; I will not change it.If you guys give me time I think I can make this article acceptable Zach 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject of the article is unacceptable fancruft, no matter how much time and effort you spend on it. Wikipedia is not a game guide and Wikipedia is not a webhosting service for fan communities Bwithh 04:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ANGRY Ok, seriously I am getting pissed off now. I have been given very little time to make this article acceptable and there is other articles like this. I am starting to find these comments hypocritical. If you wish to see other maps for Warcraft 3 go to Warcraft 3 and then on the table of contents thing and go to other maps. There will be a list of maps including the Europa one which I did not put there but added the link to my article. None of these articles since last I checked have been suggested for deletion which makes me think some of the comments said here are hypocritical while the other articles have been there for many weeks/months but this is unknown to me but I know they've been there for awhile. Compared to mine me a noob to Wikipedia have been given very little time to make this article acceptable. I know I am repeating but it seems like people aren't getting my point. Zach 04:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calming I'm sorry you're getting "pissed off." The Wikipedia society is not attacking you. The term fancruft has nothing to do with the quality of the article. In fact, you wrote a great article and I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Fancruft suggests that the article is only understandable by a small group people who know about the subject. NN stands for non-notable; this just means that the article's subject is not large/popular enough of a topic to merit a Wikipedia article. About those other maps, I plan on nominating them for deletion soon. There are other sites that are designed for this purpose. --Dakart 06:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agreed, the new editor deserves explanations when he asks questions. I mean, he's not a vandal or spammer as far as I can see, no reason not to assume good faith. Thanks Dakart for giving a good response. Paddles TC 07:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another newbie bitten. Silensor 05:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another newbie to whom a number of editors have been patiently trying to explain that Wikipedia has certain standards for articles, and his not only does not meet them but likely never will. I have long been bemused by the premise that WP:BITE requires us both never to contradict a newcomer or explain to him why Wikipedia's rules and guidelines apply to his own efforts. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 07:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRUFT. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete and clear case of cruft, I see no reason why there has been so much deliberation. SM247 06:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like the new editor has made a decent try, but it does seem to me to count as fancruft and hence not suitable for WP. I'd say the same applies to the other maps referred to earlier. Paddles TC 07:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no serious reason for deliberation, but certainly reason not to piss him off. The article is getting better fast, which is certainly admirable. But the article's subject matter is not - just like we cannot have an article about the chair I am sitting in because it would be based entirely on me and not sources and because not enough encyclopedia-goers would be interested. Certainly a lot of WCiii gamers might be, but this does not warrant inclusion here, sorry. I sincerely hope you are not put of by this and I apologize if I have been rude, the last thing I want to do is run you off WP, you seem motivated, interested and capable. Lundse 09:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per the arguments above. Hope that the creator reads up on the policies that have been linked and continues to work on Wikipedia: also that he recreates this article elsewhere. Vizjim 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Cruft is a neologism, fancruft even more so, neither are widely used, it'd be nice if people explained these terms rather than assumed everyone is conversant in subculture jargon. --Coroebus 11:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment. You're right (although I do think the word is wicked cool), especially newcomers should not be subjected to unnecesarry slang. We should have been better at explaining this term early on and/or providing a link - something to take note of for the welcome commitee. Lundse 11:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable game map, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 11:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I can understand the confusion when other articles about specific maps are not deleted. Is there something different about those other maps, or is this just inconsistency. Trebor 11:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a user guide. Markb 12:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN fancruft. Beno1000 12:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is fairly consistant practice that mods and maps don't get articles unless they become enormously popular (ala Counterstrike). I also want to second what Coroebus and Lundse stated above. Nominating someone's article for deletion is likely going to irritate them from the start. When they come here and see arcane references like "nn" and "cruft" it doesn't do much to encourage them to continue involvement here, or even explain to them what the problem is. In my opinion, Lundse's deletion opinion is the right way to do things.--Isotope23 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To the creator: just copy this article to specialized Warcraft wiki. You might also "userfy" it, moving to your own namespace, like User:ShadowZach/Europa. Overall, the article doesn't deserve deletion, but it's simply out of Wikipedia's scope and needs transwikiing. CP/M 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy / Transwiki it, then Delete per Hetar --Zoz (t) 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all video game trivia. Sandstein 20:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other articles on video game maps have been kept, and recently (see de_dust, etc.) so there is precedent for well-written game map articles here. That being said, THIS article is an unholy mess, but it should have been tagged for cleanup and wikify before being brought here, especially when it was just created yesterday. Most articles are a work in progress and don't get spit out all sparkly on the first iteration. Aguerriero (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Oh thats what fancruft means,I'll try to make more articles if I get any ideas..Zach 21:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Maybe I should make a popular wc maps section so its more able to relate to more people but it could also have a section about this.Zach 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC) -Wow I just checked, someone nomianted all those sections to be deleted after I talked about them earlier, atleast this deletion is less hypocritical or at all now.[reply]

  • Merge Into a List of maps in Warcraft article, delete cruft such as the section on "how to tell if someone's a noob"--Zxcvbnm 00:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETION Eh, screw it, it's overwhelmingly favor in deletion, I have article saved on Microsoft Word if I decide to bring it back when I'm more experienced with Wikipedia or if I hear several people wanting it back... I am going to delete this article unless others want it kept...Original Article Creator (its a waste of time to keep this deletion thing still here, its gonna be deleted...) Zach 03:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean theres 1 keep besides me and the rest are deletion... it's obvious which side wins.Zach 03:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just don't take it personally. It's not that article is bad, it's just that the general opinion here is against keeping it in the namespace. I'm sure wowwiki or some gaming site will appreciate it, WP is simply too generic for it. CP/M 04:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wikipedia is full of articles like this, I can't see any reason to delete it.--Pokipsy76 08:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Somone put it back up anyways... I guess I'll just wait till the article deletion suggestion thing is over.Zach 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yeah... On Wikipedia, you don't just delete the article. You have to nominate the article for deletion, people have to vote on it, then an admin will come and delete (if the majority of the votes say to delete) the article about 5 days after the nomination. --Dakart 01:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: I don't think there should be a article for a map. You can't pick much out of it. Maybe, if there was a article with ALL MAPS for this game.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starmenclock (talk • contribs) .
  • reply... Yeah an all maps section will never happen... theres THOUSANDS of maps for warcraft and about 99% of them arent even popular though, a popular map section would be better.Zach 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fancruft --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm ... if its 5 day article deletion my article will be deleted on 666.... so cruel ..Zach 03:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zach, without denying that you are a major contributor to the article in question, remember that it is WP's article, not yours... see WP:OWN. Also, the five day counter for AfD discussion is approximate not precise - some articles are decided on quicker (speedy candidates), others can go for a week or longer. Paddles TC 09:22, 6 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Europa_(warcraft)&oldid=1137834892"