Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of references in Overwatch

List of references in Overwatch

List of references in Overwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TRIVIA - Wikipedia is not TV Tropes, and any references need to be well sourced by third-parties, otherwise this is all Original Research MASEM (t) 03:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I don’t understand why third-party sources are necessary. All that they do is repeat the facts listed in the Wikipedia article. A true source would be Blizzard themselves describing these references.

By the way, List of Pixar film references does not have a citation for every item on the list, so should that article not be deleted as well?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The very basis of Wikipedia is writing articles according to what third party, reliable sources can verify. It's a core piece of how we write prose, and how we determine notability. Your question is like asking "Why do tricycles have to have 3 wheels?" - Because that's what they fundamentally are by definition. Same here. Also, your Pixar article Isn't particularly a good example either - it's tagged for clean up itself. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• @PapiDimmi: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft/trivia, impossible to secondarily source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe such an article is possible if appropriate sources were available, but the existing article is uncited fancruft. Example: The "Jail" spray, available for all heroes, has the caption "Go directly to jail", which is a reference to the "GO TO JAIL" card in the original 1933 board game Monopoly. I mean, how stupid can you get??? WP:TNT at the very least. EEng 04:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Actual sources would be screenshots or videos, but that’d be copyright infringement, wouldn’t it? I don’t get why some obscure “news” website has to repeat what the Wikipedia article says for it to be considered valid.

I wouldn’t bothered if I hadn’t have spent hours on writing the article, linking to pages, and researching. I don’t get this OR policy.

Again, why can List of Pixar film references provide facts without references?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 05:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Just because X said Y, and in a separate work Z said Y, does not mean X is referencing Z. It might be, it might not be. That's why we need third-party sources to make that judgement for us. I do know that we can source that Mcree was modeled after The Man with No Name from Blizzard themselves, but that's about all we can source to that extent. And again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. I do think that the Pixar film article is weak, but also to its fairness there is a LOT of coverage of Pixar's self-references in third-party sources to make such an article work. It definitely does not exist for Overwatch. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Blizzard will never verify any of this, but that doesn’t mean that the information is false. A link to PC Gamer saying that the claims are true doesn’t make much of a difference, does it?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 05:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

With PC Gamer being a reliable source, yes it does as it takes out any original research associated with making that connection. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

How does it do that? Please explain.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 06:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete – Original research, fails to meet notability criteria for stand-alone lists, a clear example of fancruft, gamecruft, listcruft, and trivia. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - one giant collection of WP:GAMECRUFT. This is the type of stuff we strip out of articles, let alone have dedicated articles for. We're an encyclopedia, not TV Tropes. Sergecross73 msg me 12:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced trivia. The topic does not meet GNG. The content is unsourced and undue and doesn't fit the main article to be a SPLIT. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOTTRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. Only source is youtube which gives it away the whole article is original research. Ajf773 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is a YouTube video not a reliable source? ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's a video from a reliable source, like IGN or Eurogamer, it'd be okay. If it's just a random person who uploaded it, then it's going to fail WP:RS, WP:USERG, WP:SPS, etc. The bigger issue is probably that you're trying to source like a 50 point billeted list with a single short YouTube video. That leaves about 98% of the article unsourced even if it was reliable. Also, no offense... but you seem have an awful lot of questions on the very basics of Wikipedia policy. It may be easier if you try to read up on these things yourself, rather than continuing to defiantly ask over and over again at this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 22:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)