Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classes in World of Warcraft: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Origen (talk | contribs)
45 edits
Line 98: Line 98:


'''Keep''' It is an interesting insight into a game. When I go to a museum, I do not personally "like" all the exhibits. But I appreciate the collection. I view Wikipedia the same way: a cumulative collection of interests.
'''Keep''' It is an interesting insight into a game. When I go to a museum, I do not personally "like" all the exhibits. But I appreciate the collection. I view Wikipedia the same way: a cumulative collection of interests.

*'''Delete''' It needs to go as it reads like a blatent gameguide. Its also acting as a magnet for prats and as such reads differently every hour or so. Its just not a professional or well written article, never was and seems like it never will be.

Revision as of 03:05, 3 November 2006

Classes in World of Warcraft

Game guide, prohibited by WP:NOT. World of Warcraft covers the subject of classes adequately without the need for a indiscriminate list. Combination 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Move this to the WOW page or other sections its gamecruft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)
  • Keep There are many types of pages that describe things from video games (and movies and books......). I don't think that it is a game guide. A quote from our page on game guides: instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games. The exact meaning of a "strategy guide" these days is very vague, as most could be easily ranked as "walkthroughs" or "hint collections". It doesn't give hints, it just describes the classes. Cbrown1023 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a game guide, aside from a few iffy sections. It merely describes something that is characteristic of a game. The information is primarily an extension of the already existing WoW article, providing more details about the classes than can easily fit there. If you see anything that says something like "Taurnes make the best Shamans when they do this build" delete it, but the article itself isn't a problem. If it is...check the category for Character classes. Mister.Manticore 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it appears to only list verifiable facts, and from the looks of the talk page, they've tried hard to keep it from becoming a guide. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet my encyclopedic threshold. Agree with nom that this is spiralling into a game guide -- Samir धर्म 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is your encyclopedic threshold in regards to this article? Mister.Manticore 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a guide to an online game -- Samir धर्म 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not very informative. I asked about your encyclopedia threshold, not for references to what is a very ill-defined standard. The page you cited doesn't describe the difference between a game guide and information about a game at all, and IMHO, is close to outright uselessness. So I ask, where is the threshold for you (or for anybody else claiming it is a game guide, I'm not addressing this to you in particular) as to what is a game guide, and what is encyclopedic content about a game? Where do you, speaking for yourself, draw the line? What would shift the balance of this article to encyclopedic? Mister.Manticore 01:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This article is essentially a summary of the WoW site on character classes: [1] and the sub-pages of that page. In my opinion, that makes it analogous to a gaming guide. Suitable for a gaming wiki, not for an encyclopedia -- Samir धर्म 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree. While it certainly can be argued that this page is redundant to any number of pages on classes in World of Warcraft, that is not a reason for deletion. In fact, that's a good thing, since it means there are sources on it. Anyway, this is an article that has spun off from the main article about a game, and there's no question of deleting that. Nor does the information being about a game make it a game guide in the sense that I'd consider it inherently objectionable. So really, what makes an article about a game, or aspect of it a game guide? What do you feel would have to be removed or added to make this article encyclopedic? What do you feel about the other articles about character classes? Mister.Manticore 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't see much in terms of sources. The only WP:RS is the link I listed above and its subpages. This article is essentially a re-hash of that particular guide to the character classes. -- Samir धर्म 06:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Lack of sources is not itself a reason for deletion, and if you want to tag it as unsourced, go right ahead. There's no shortage of informative books about WoW, that's for sure. Mister.Manticore 06:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, but this can fundamentally draw from only one source, right. In its ideal, it will be the players guide to the classes of WoW. That's what defines its (for want of a better term) cruftiness and non-encyclopedic nature -- Samir धर्म 07:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So in your view all articles not being the game/movie/book etc. should be deleted? Say example articles built on said main article; Homer J. Simpson, Gandalf, Mario, Excalibur etc. Havok (T/C/c) 10:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Fundamentally, almost all articles about an aspect of a creative media can only draw from one source. I don't think that means much. This article isn't existing in isolation, but is a daughter of the main World of Warcraft article. Since people what to know about that, this aspect of it needs coverage there. But wait, that article has become rather long. So a convenient section was spun-off. And while I suppose if you define ideal as "Completely exhaustive and informative about a subject" it might qualify as a game guide, but there's a difference between that and setting a goal as "ideal for Wikipedia" which would simply be informative to the extent appropriate for an encyclopedia. In this case, I'd say a sufficient description so that the uninformed person can understand what the classes individually mean in the game is what we should be shooting for. Where do you draw the line? Having no content whatsoever? Having one line summaries? Again, I ask, where do you draw the line? What should be added or removed? Mister.Manticore 14:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I don't see why this article couldn't be condensed into a few paragraphs in the main article. EvilCouch 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it doesn't really seem like a game guide, it gives no info about how to play the class, only info about the class. As said above, if there were talent trees or even links to talent trees, then yes, it would be, but the way it is it is only factual info. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Game guide, obvious listcruft. L0b0t 01:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The list of classes is kind of important to the World of Warcraft article, but including it all in the actual article would make it unreasonably long. Take a look at Professions (World of Warcraft), for example. That portion of the article has been pushed off to its own page. Seems sensible to me. But if this page ends up being deleted, we'll need to look at the other subpages off of World of Warcraft too. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Borderline game guide, but I can see how this could be useful information, not that this isn't avaliable in numerous other forms, however. wtfunkymonkey 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Wtfunkymonkey. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How about RuneScape? - jlao 04 02:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominated. Mr Spunky Toffee 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Neutral information for an obviously notable game, and the precedence is set by RuneScape per Jlao --Steve 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how it is of any use except as a game guide. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Waddles like a game guide, Quacks like a game guide. Obviously a game guide. Fails WP:NOT. Bwithh 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain how this is a game guide? Mister.Manticore 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's well constructed, but there's a better article on WoWwiki. VergiliusMaro 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Virgil[reply]
Um, I hope you know that "There's better information elsewhere" is not a good reason to delete anything. Good reason to improve that part of Wikipedia perhaps, but certainly not to delete someting. Mister.Manticore 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut down, clean up, and merge to the World of Warcraft article.--TBCΦtalk? 06:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — as per DoomsDay349 Dionyseus 07:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep In need of heavy cleanup, which I have tried if you check the talk page. But I was flamed for my edits. Havok (T/C/c) 10:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've removed much of the information that made the article read like a game guide. I will now await the outcry of being an administrator and wrecker of information. The entire article seemed almost copy/pasted from WoWWiki to the letter. I also removed the entire second section of all the classes as it it only explained more in detail what was already in the article. Havok (T/C/c) 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is now. If it goes back to how it was previously though, I will change to a delete. The Kinslayer 11:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs a rewrite, but there is no reason this article shouldn't exist. How is this a game guide? Nobody's stated how it's a game guide other then the fact that it is - that's called Circular Logic. -Ryanbomber 13:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think what happened was when it was nominated, it WAS extremely game guidey (Believe me, I saw it.) But sometime into the debate, Havok went and essentially gutted the article, removing everything that looked like it was game guidey, meaning it was more suited for wikipedia then it was. The Kinslayer 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If one edit is all it took to fix it, then this nomination was REALLY short-sighted. -Ryanbomber 17:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the talk page and edit history for the article before opining thusly. It was a series of HIGHLY contested edits over several weeks that get constantly reverted by spotty fan-boys who don't seem to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. L0b0t 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My complete lack of reading talk and history aside (Sorry!), it still doesn't make much sense. Just because the editors of the page aren't that great doesn't mean the information is any less inferior. The article needs work, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. That's called being lazy. And it could still use a bit of touching up, but this is a great start. -Ryanbomber 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On page disputes should probably be resolved through means other than an AfD. Not that I'm seeing much from the people who participated in those disputes in this discussion here anyway. But maybe we'll get lucky and this will be an impetus to positive change. Mister.Manticore 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only on condition that article is cut down further. Very good work has been done to this article but there is still a lot which needs to be cut out, IMHO. --Hydraton31 20:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article should be improved instead of deleting. The article does need sourcing and some more game guide information can be taken out. However, there is enough information to keep it off the main WoW area.
  • Strong Delete, or else Merge with World of Warcraft#Characters. How is any of this information actually of interest to non-players? What is so special about WoW's Warrior that it can't be covered in Warrior (character class)? Stances and rage are pretty common concepts. Unless there are some specific reasons why WoW classes are different enough from the generic classes articles to exist separate from them, this should all be merged with them. GarrettTalk 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of one reasonably convenient article, you'd rather have 9 to go through? Not that I really see a problem with having the information in both places, as that's helpful in its own way. I also seem to have a different perception of this article not being interesting information to non-players, since it provides a very basic description that's probably of little interest to actual players. Mister.Manticore 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm imagining is a quick list at World of Warcraft#Classes that summarises what WoW classes can do and how they are different from the same classes in the glut of other MMOs, and then linking to the generic articles for more in-depth comparisons of the non-unique features. GarrettTalk 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I see it the seperate article is meant to summarize what the classes can do, and exists because doing those summaries properly would contribute to an existing Article size problem. Sad to say, the WOW main article is just that big. I don't see it getting smaller. Thus sections like this which can be treated independently are created, with more detail added as the size issue is not so much of an immediate problem. Talking about differences between the WOW classes and those in other systems is certainly appropriate for a different article, specific to the class, but getting into the differences might be considered original research. In any case, I'd strongly oppose this article being treated that way. This article is supposed to be about WOW classes, and should stick very carefully to just that. But feel free to bring up the issue on the existing class pages. Mister.Manticore 02:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rage and Stances are common concepts? Since when? WoW's the only one I know of with them. How many other games have totems? Energy? Combo points? Heck, we can have a section based JUST on new class concepts and how the WoW classes are different from the archetypes.-Ryanbomber 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go into detail here, but all those things have been done by other CPRGs or PnP games, albeit under different names. More on that in a minute. Afd is first and foremost critiquing articles' current status, not their potential. This particular article needs a better focus on what is new or different from previous games and/or fantasy worlds rather than providing the current grab-bag of new and old concepts without identifying which WoW changed or invented. Doing this would strip much of the generic class handling content (thus removing the "game guide" argument) and would clearly indicate the real world significance of WoW's classes to fantasy gaming as a whole, whereas right now the information only demonstrates its importance to WoW itself (which doesn't count when it comes to overall significance). This revision isn't that, however, so I'm still arguing for deletion. GarrettTalk 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The World of Warcraft classes at one point all had articles each on themselves but many thought they should be merged because of "cruft" and "game guide" issues but I am not opposed to breaking them back down Derktar 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, No comment SSJ 5 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is a basic list of the classes of the game, not a guide.
  • Delete The Paladin is a supportive, hybrid melee fighter. Paladins use an assortment of spells, auras and blessings to aid themselves and others. → WP:NOT a game guide. ~ trialsanderrors 03:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Umm... that's not even remotely what "game guide" is. That's exactly what the Paladin class is. Game Guide is when someone explains to you how to play a class, that sentence does not. If that was the criteria, then we couldn't explain in the Mario article that he's a plumber. Havok (T/C/c) 06:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so Mario is a game about plumbing? I don't know, if the article tells me that Paladins use an assortment of spells, auras and blessings to aid themselves and others then it tells me that Paladins use an assortment of spells, auras and blessings to aid themselves and others, which is exactly what a game guide does. But if you don't think that's a sufficient rationale, I go with Delete unsourced and potentially original research. ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, these informations are available on the game website. We could add links to all class pages but it wouldn't really be useful. -- lucasbfr talk 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Link to the website and delete this article then. An encyclopedia ≠ an extension of the corporate website. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mario isn't a single game, but several, and the articles on the individual games do include descriptions of gameplay. Check them out. List of Mario games. You'll find a lot about stomping and shooting fireballs. You may have a lot of rewriting in for you. And yeah, claiming this is unsourced is not substantiated. Mister.Manticore 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete them all then. WP:NOT holds for Mario too. Why should I rewrite other people's policy-violatingcrap? ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you're going ot suggest deleting dozens of articles because they describe the gameplay of their respective game? That seems excessive. Especially since what does and what does not constitute a game guide is not well established on Wikipedia. I'd suggest working on that issue first myself. Mister.Manticore 04:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I just had this article pointed out to me Pokémon game mechanics. The AfD for it might be worth reading. Mister.Manticore 04:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You've never played WoW, have you? Yes, it's true that Paladins heal people. That is what we in the inside-top-secret-know call a "basic description of what the paladin class does." GASP! The wiki does not tell you HOW to heal, merely that it exists. Game guides generally have the criteria of "telling you how to do things." Seeing as this wiki page has none of that... As for sourcing, that's not anything to delete the entire page over. It can be easily fixed - heck, you can do it yourself, if you so desire immediate change. -Ryanbomber 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I desire immediate deletion, if that isn't clear from my comments. If it's sourceable and you want the article to be kept, follow our policies: WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and especially WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, immediate deletion isn't going to happen, this isn't a speedy candidate. I don't think you are making much of a case by just rambling off a bunch of policy links either. Especially NOR and NPOV, which aren't at all applicable to this article. And a lack of sources/verification isn't an immediate deletion problem either, and it's not a real problem here either, as it should be pretty obvious that the character classes in WoW are easily verifiable. Mister.Manticore 05:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked, it's even already cited! At the bottom of the page, external links, WoW site. What more do you want? -Ryanbomber 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it was me who put the <references/> tag in because none of you Keepists could be bothered. Not that the single link actually establishes anything the article claims. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone so by the book, you're having a wonderful time forgetting WP:ATTACK. Not to mention you have yet to prove that there's actually anything wrong. I've got an idea, how about you put a "citation needed" for all these "controversial facts" that we need to cite? Because, unless you have some sort of grudge against WoW (which is my guess at this point) you have yet to actually say anything other then "THIS VIOLATES VARIOUS WIKI POLICIES." Saying what we need to cite would be a good start for improving this article, instead of just throwing away perfectly fine information. -Ryanbomber 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the article is almost two months old, 2000 words long, has gone through 500 edits and up to today didn't even have a References section. How much more blatant can it get? ~ trialsanderrors 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this is because a) nobody asked for citation and b) it was assumed to be obvious enough that we don't need to cite every single thing? Again, if you have such a problem with it, add "citations needed." And you're missing the point - this AFD is because it's a game guide, not because it's not cited right. -Ryanbomber 11:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable.--Josh 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and rewrite so that all game guide aspects are removed, there, wass that so difficult? -Derktar 07:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, World of Warcraft is notable with over 6 six million players. The player class descriptions describe what each of the class can do however I think a bit of lore should be added to the description to keep it from being confused with a strategy guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.175.195 (talk • contribs)
  • keep. 6M players means the main article probably needs to be broken into so-called "crufty" articles that fools assume need deleted. Unfocused 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Please familiarize yourself with WP:ATTACK and stay on point.L0b0t 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, game guide and haven for fair use images that are not necessary. I like the suggestion of linking to the general character concept articles from the WOW article section. -- nae'blis 16:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: People, HOW IS THIS A GAME GUIDE? You guys have yet to prove the entire reason this article is up for nomination in the first place! -Ryanbomber 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree this is not game guide material, and for those who suggested to remove the game guide material from this, I challenge you to find game guide material first. This is the same nonsense that happened when the instances page was deleted. It really stinks that people have a grudge against WoW and they keep trying to attack it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.7.52.17 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Unsourced information that seems to be in large part to be original research. Wickethewok 22:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term is "common knowledge," but if you really want sources then we can add them. Nothing to delete the page over. -Ryanbomber 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see WP:CN, we do need sources, even for common knowledge. L0b0t 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. What exactly do we need to cite? Oh, and we've already referenced the WoW site itself... -Ryanbomber 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see how this couldn't be simply looked at as a list of characters or something similar to that... DotDarkCloud 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, WP:NOT proscribes lists of fictional characters. L0b0t 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page couldn't fit in the main article, and if it is borderline, I tend to think it is not a game guide. It might be a bit too detailed though, but since it is in its own article... -- lucasbfr talk 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep Most people that know of wikipedia and get WoW will probably come here to look for information on the game. What will they think when they come here and find about 2 paragraphs saying which characters you can be and what they focus on. As a player of the game I know what people will expect and that is a detailed article telling them what to expect in allies and enemies. Just think if you got something then while it was installing you came here to look for information on it and you found some scamp article that doesn't even outline what you need. Think about it. Pariand29 03:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm think those people would be better off looking at the many, many, many sources of game documentation rather than a general purpose encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for game players to learn more about their games. L0b0t 15:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Games players do look at Wikipedia to learn more about games they have not played yet. For example, players of other MMORPGs may look to this page to compare and contrast how their games' classes compares to WoW's. I've used City of Heroes characters to learn more about that game because I don't play it.
Yeah, why should people LEARN things in an encyclopedia?! What a stupid concept! [/sarcasm] Just because it's about pop culture or entertainment doesn't make it any less notable. -Ryanbomber 16:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your comment. I was replying to Pariand29, who was talking about players of WoW looking in the encyclopedia for installation and gameplay information. They would be better off looking at all the official documentation for the game rather than the general purpose encyclopedia. However, people unfamiliar with the game would also be better off looking elsewhere as Wikipedia is not a gameguide, directory, or instruction manual, see WP:NOT. "Just because it's about pop culture or entertainment doesn't make it any less notable." No, it actually makes it easier for it to be notable and as such, the bar for inclusion into the general purpose encyclopedia is set that much higher. Start a fansite, start a WoW wiki if there is not one already, write a book about WoW, just keep this obvious fanboy cruft out of the encyclopedia. L0b0t 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HOW IS THIS A GAME GUIDE?!?! (You're going to ignore this because I've asked other questions.) Besides, if I ever want to look something "trivial" up really quick, I use the wiki. If I didn't play WoW, then a description of the classes would be a "trivial" thing that I'd use the wiki to look up. Not "trivial" as in without merit, but "trivial" as in... y'know... trivia? If we start deleting things from the wiki because there are other places to look, then we'd have no wiki. At all. The wiki is ALL STUFF FROM OTHER PLACES! First you people yell at us for not citing, now that we say "we'll cite it" you're saying that the fact that we found other sources makes this article moot? Make up your minds... -Ryanbomber 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an interesting insight into a game. When I go to a museum, I do not personally "like" all the exhibits. But I appreciate the collection. I view Wikipedia the same way: a cumulative collection of interests.

  • Delete It needs to go as it reads like a blatent gameguide. Its also acting as a magnet for prats and as such reads differently every hour or so. Its just not a professional or well written article, never was and seems like it never will be.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Classes_in_World_of_Warcraft&oldid=85399312"