- 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 speedy close. The nominator apparently doesn't want the article deleted. No-one else does, either. AFD is not Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Only nominate articles for deletion where you actually want an administrator to hit a delete button. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Warcraft universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Procedural nomination. There have been a lot of related deletions lately, where many advocated deletion, and where the result often was a merge, in the end into this article. Those deletions happened and closed between the last nomination of this article and now. In order to properly gauge the community consensus on these articles, this article has to be nominated for deletion again. User:Krator (t c) 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think that WP:Fict is satisified with the current article, as long as it is bolstered with more citations. Warcraft is one of the most important video game franchises, its WP:Notability well established with its best selling awards, a film in the works, and cultural influence. Unless the nom feels that the information is duplicated elsewhere, (if so please cite) the article should stay. Zidel333 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't understand why this article needs to be re-nominated. What is its supposed problem? The Warcraft universe is clearly notable, and because there are many notable works set in it, it is a good place to organize their notable common aspects. The previous AFD, which was less than a month ago, closed with 14 keep and 3 delete. — brighterorange (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for Comment, user:Krator, why exactly is this up for deletion so soon after its previous one? What specifically do you think is not appropriate in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidel333 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just about one of the most notable computer game franchises going. Seems a perfectly valid page to me. Alberon (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't see how added material to an article that had already survived a recent AfD would make it more likely to be deleted. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The article does not have to be nominated again and no policy saying this has been cited. What the actual policy says is that such rapid, repeat nominations are disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 6 December 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.