Deletion of Inconsistencies in Warcraft lore

Comment: violates  and uses unreliable sources (WoWWiki, of all things). This article would be better on WoWWiki than on Wikipedia. As noted above, being a "crufty" article doesn't mean automatically mean it should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Clearly fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Even though I'm usually a vigilante when it comes to helping and working on Warcraft articles, I've been extremely skeptical to this article since it was first created. Whereas I tried to get people to source everything. But, as it stands now, it breaks  and . If people can clean it up before the AfD is over, I'll change my vote to Keep, but as it stands I give a weak delete. I would also like to point out that the AfD reason is not the reason I voted what I did, as "''cruft''" if not a good reason to delete anything
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:OR)

Comment: Fails .  The game itself is notable, but its plot holes are not.  Also fails OR, particularly .  Determining whether something constitutes a conflict in a creative work inherently involves advancing a new position
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOR||WP:SYNT)

Comment: as |original research. It even cites WoWWiki
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)