Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMORPG terms and acronyms 2

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 no consensus leaning toward keep, so keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPG terms and acronyms[edit]

I understand that the first afd was closed as keep due to no good reasoning. But i feel that this article still needs to be deleted because it violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Sure that this list may contain terms that are notable for everyone (HP-Health Point). But this list is neither verified nor sourced. I won't recommend removing the not-so-notable terms and keeping the obvious, since determining which term is notable is original research KaiFei 03:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Farside6 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete per above, may change to keep if someone comes up with a convincing reason to keep †he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how WP:NFT applies here. Not for things...was written up to prevent people from adding novel, perhaps good but mostly junk, topics that would fall under WP:OR to wikipedia. Many of these acronyms are used by many in the MMORPG subculture. Adding sources is an issue that needs to be addressed in the article, but I'm sure many of the well known terms could be sourced (e.g. PvP, PK, HP, EXP, etc.). Mitaphane _talk 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane _talk 04:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a large collection of fanbase-specific glossary terms to me, which could be considered under the indiscriminate information policies. I might reconsider my position should a good keep reasoning be given, with accompanying reliable sources. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fairly comprehensive list, but it's highly specialized and of no use to anyone who doesn't play MMORPGs. Cheers, Lankybugger 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, barely passes the Bajoran Wormhole test User:Pedant 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Specialization isn't a good argument for deletion. There must be a million entries that are of no use to someone who's not interested in X. Ford MF 05:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But neither is it inherently a reason to keep it when it fails explicit Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT). Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you're concerned about sources, pick up a copy of Massively Multiplayer Games for Dummies or a similar books or a site like WOW's glossary. This subject is not something that counts as inherently related to WP:NFT though I'm sure people will try to add entries to the list based on that. FrozenPurpleCube 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is not the sole issue with this article. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too specifially fan-based list cruft. No people other than these game players would need of want to view this. MiracleMat 07:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Glossaries of this type serve a useful purpose and are actually quite common in Wikipedia. See Category:Glossaries. In case this is not fit for Wikipedia, it should at least be moved to Wiktionary instead of deleted outright. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP is not paper. Anjouli 07:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an encyclopaedia. Which is not a dictionary or a glossary of terms. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unencyclopedic - glossary with no context with sources. Severe references/original research problems. Actually no references at all. Game guide. Inaccurate and misleading indiscriminate collection of information - The majority of these terms are not original to MMORPGs but come from Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying board games (e.g. XP for experience, 2H for 2 handed weapons, AC = Armor Class, heal, haste, HP=health points, tank etc.) or from text-based MUD computer games (e.g. PK for Player Killer, Emote, Mob etc.) or are not specific to any kind of games at all e.g. "Lmao / roflmao", "afk", "spam", "end-game", "log in/out", mitigation" etc. Bwithh 07:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although some terms are specific to MMOGs, the current article is really just an indiscriminate mish-mash of collected terms. I might change to keep if the list were heavily cleaned up, and if it provided more information about the origins of specific terms (with sources). --Alan Au 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is not a phrase book.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The article fails WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary or glossary of terms. It also fails WP:NOR (original research), as most of it is unreferenced or referenced from unreliable sources. Proto::► 10:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, a game guide or a slang guide, and some of these aren't even verified. JIP | Talk 10:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MMORPG is too wide and varied -Doc^g 11:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I admit it could use cleanup. ~ Flame vip e r 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. "No good reasoning" - whatever could that mean? It is presumptious and inherently subjective for editors to judge the reasons given to keep an article, or insist that each deletion must be argued in insiders' terms. The list itself is a perfectly valuable jargon-file type list, and provides a convenient place to merge jargon items that might otherwise end up as separate articles. Moreover, gamers themselves are reliable sources for this sort of information. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a glossary of terms. This article is inherently in violation of one of the principle policies of Wikipedia, What Wikipedia is not.
It is also galling, and borders on a breach of civility, to have each "keep" opinion be contested by the busy deletion lobby, and met with a screed of doctrine. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while cleaning up to retain only those terms for which WP:RS reliable sources can be shown. --Pak21 14:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and smosh to 1000 pieces and blend it in a blender. Most of the terms are thought up by a dozen of gamers and they come to wikipedia to add it. I will change my vote if this list is cleaned up to the point where all the terms are verifiable.

219.74.192.19 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Plus, this page is dripping in original research - where, for example, are you going to find a reliable source that states that "1HPP" means "one-handed poisened weapon"? A lot of people obviously put a lot of effort into this article and I appreciate that, but if something breaks the first pillar, it has to go. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 14:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a reliable source for a single entry, remove it. That doesn't mean there aren't sources for OTHER entries. FrozenPurpleCube 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Change to Transwiki to wiktionary, per precedent at Anime and manga terminology. It violates WP:NOT so it shouldn't be on wikipedia, but there's quite a lot of "useful" information there. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ford -Toptomcat 15:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: While I lean towards this being a violation of WP:Not a dictionary and WP:OR, the fact that there are plenty of similar articles under Category: Glossaries makes its existence at least justifiable. On the other hand, many of the terms are not unique to MMORPGs, so if it remains, it requires a lot of cleanup in order for it to be a true and accurate list of terms as well as conforming with WP:RS --Scottie theNerd 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth noting that the list criteria does exclude such things, so if some have slipped in, it would be appropriate to remove them, though I'm not sure it would be the best idea to remove them. If they're used in MMORPGs, it might be helpful to include them, as people who don't know about their use in RPGs, chatrooms, or whatever, might seek help on them. FrozenPurpleCube 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of one poor article should not be used to justify another. See WP:INN. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people play MMORPGs. Several million alone in World of Warcraft. Accordingly, the language used by this group of people is reasonable to include. If there were some absolute rule against glossaries, that would be one thing, but there isn't. Not in practice anyway. There's not just one article, there's dozens. This is no less useful than a glossary on ballet or tea ceremonies. FrozenPurpleCube 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup, source. If its notable enough to be on the list, it should be able to be sourced. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is not the only issue with the article. It fails WP:NOT. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Dark Shikari, your argument is "if its notable enough that someone puts in into a Wikipedia article, it logically follows that there must be reliable sources out there on it"??????? Bwithh 12:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like ZOMG y wud u de133t this? Not only are the acronyms relevent, an article on the topic in general is certainly encyclopedic. WP:IAR >> all "not" arguments. Tarinth 17:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Proto::► 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ORLY? Tarinth 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, does anybody want to try moving Wikitionary? FrozenPurpleCube 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely it needs cleanup and sourcing, but these things are not out of the realm of immediate possibility. As cited above, WoW's glossary exists (if that is to be accepted as a reliable source) as well as Massively Multiplayer Games for Dummies [1]. Many glossaries exist on Wikipedia and I don't see how this one is less worthy. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REALLY SUPER STRONG KEEP tho could do with clearing up and removing the nn terms —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slogankid (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I fail to see how this is anything but a dictionary or glossary. Agent 86 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you use that argument, do you also advocate deleting everything at Category:Glossaries? --Fang Aili ^talk 19:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not up for deletion. This one is. If those articles do not comply with the fundamental content policies, maybe they should be - but I haven't read them all. From a brief glance at a couple of the articles in the category, I'd likely support deletion if those particular articles had been nominated. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Just because the articles in that category exist does nothing to demonstrate how this article complies with WP:NOT (and other policies cited in this AfD). Agent 86 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know I would advocate deleting the lot, or moving them to Wiktionary. Proto::► 12:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86. Xiner (talk, email) 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree that this can't be anything other than original research, a collection of unverified (though perhaps real) neologisms, and an indiscriminate list to boot.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even after I produced a book and a web page that provide reliable sources for many (if not all) of the terms? FrozenPurpleCube 20:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website is specific to a single game, and only includes perhaps half of what's on this article. If you want to pick up a copy of the book you mentioned and source all of the terms, that would be helpful. It's still a collection of neologisms and a (rather) indiscriminate collection.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, World of Warcraft is a single game. It's also the biggest of MMORPGs. Even if most of the words used weren't actually common to MMORPGs in general, I'd have no objection to including those unique to the World of Warcraft culture(or some of the other big-name MMORPGs like Everquest, City of Heroes, etc). As a source though, it represents the work of a major company in the business. That makes it pretty good as a reliable source in my book. Yes, these are new terms used by a relatively new social group, but that doesn't mean there isn't documentation from reliable sources about them. The fact is, you said this list can't be anything other than original research. That's flat-out wrong, I found two sources without even trying hard. Maybe you should revise your comments accordingly? I can understand the concern about this being a collection of words (though given the other glossaries around, I don't feel it's especially objectionable), but your description is a tad overzealous. FrozenPurpleCube 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope some of you realise that this is a debate and not a ballot. There's little point in agreeing with another editor when points have been made to refute them. If you're not going to contribute any new perspective, don't stack numbers because debates are decided based on arguments and not how many people agree. The article fulfills referencing requirements. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a debate point considering we have numerous articles in Category:Glossaries, and if WP:INN comes into play, we'll need to put all of those up for deletion. Is that the course of action we will take? --Scottie theNerd 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Useful information, worth having handy, substantial precedent for glossaries of this type, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket for it to be here, and it does good for others, and allows better understanding of terms that may leak into mmorpg-related articles (although avoiding those is the best of all) --John Kenneth Fisher 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Useful information. --Ineffable3000 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being useful is not a good reason for keeping it. My shoes are useful, but there's no article about my shoes, nor should there be. See WP:ILIKEIT. Proto::► 12:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is talking about the article being useful, not its subject. An article about your shoes would clearly not be useful. Therefore your analogy is not appropriate. — brighterorange (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If any of these terms and abbreviations came up as individual articles they would be wiped out without a second thought as either WP:NN or WP:DICDEF or WP:OR. I do not see how it makes any diffeence if they are all collected together; the same categories still apply. And I don't see how it's useful.--Anthony.bradbury 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't accept that argument when this exists. Obviously many people feel that glossaries are worth using and editing. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also pretty sure that farming and DKP wouldn't be deleted without some discussion, to name two. Bot is another. However, that an individual thing may not be notable, doesn't mean it doesn't belong as part of a collected article. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aili, see WP:INN. Proto::► 12:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read it. It's an essay, not a guideline or a policy, and I don't think it applies here. If you think this should be deleted on grounds that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", then start nominating Glossary of Japanese history, List of musical terminology, and anything else that obviously has encyclopedic value, just as MMORPG terms and acronyms does. The sheer number of glossaries confirms that the community believes these are valuable. If you want to oppose on other grounds, fine, but citing WP:NN, WP:INN, or WP:DICDEF just does not hold water. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86. Big top 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is very useful, and it shouldn't be deleted... --Catz ^{[T • C]} 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary. I find the WP:INN and WP:ILIKEIT arguments unconvincing - Aagtbdfoua 02:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Could use some cleanup, but has encyclopedic value and should be verifiable (as other editors have pointed out). There is plenty of precedent for glossaries (which I would also vote to keep). I don't believe they run afoul of WP:DICT, which concerns articles about single words. — brighterorange (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see how Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day applies here. Neither does the game guide argument - a game guide would say how to gold-farm and get "phat lewt", all this does is say what they are. As brighterorange points out, WP:DICDEF applies to articles which exist just to define a single term. Sure, some of the terms in this list should be removed, but there's a big difference between removing terms and deleting the entire list. Several people have pointed out similar glossaries on other subjects. I'm not simply saying "keep this bad article because that bad article exists". What I'm saying is that, the way it is now, glossaries are allowed on Wikipedia. If we want to have a discussion about removing all glossaries from Wikipedia, we can have that discussion. But I don't like this idea of nominating some glossaries for deletion under "Wikipedia is not a glossary", then turning a blind eye to the others. Quack 688 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's nothing wrong with glossaries. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a glossary, not a dictionary entry, and though some people may think that a glossary entry is inappropriate, as long as there is a Wikipedia Category devoted to them, it's hard for to accept that there is a community consensus that such entries should be deleted. JCO312 14:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — get off your high horse, please. Vranak 21:50, 17 January 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.