Deletion of List of pop culture references in Warcraft

Comment: or '''transwiki''' to a WoW wiki since many editors want to keep it) per nom. This is |original research. To those who say otherwise, an observation doesn't make it original research, but labeling an observation a ''pop culture reference'' with no citation does. For example, lets take the entry on Fable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per nomination. Definetely violates  unless you show me a book, a magazine/newspaper article or official site with this list. It's fun to read such stuff, but this isn't a |notable subject to merit it's own article. Another thing is the absence of using "summary form" as intended when writing articles, therefore the article also violates OT because "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: Doesn't violate  because the game itself serves as a source that can verify these.  There are many other articles in this same format, and none have references on every point.  I don't think they're necessary.  There is room for improvement, some info doesn't seem like real references, but the fix is deleting the bad statements, not the whole article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: the whole page violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: largely because it is amusing.  It is neither "|original research", in that there is neither "novel narrative" nor "novel historical interpretation" in any of it.  It's rather a matter of what people have seen and recognized as allusions in the games: the references are the games themselves, and the cultural references they are alluding to.  This isn't the sort of novel interpretation meant by the policy, which was never intended to prevent people from making note of these sort of pretty obvious allusions.  Merger to any of the main Warcraft articles is impractical: a compilation of this extent ''ought'' to have a separate article.   There are other practicalities to consider here: if this article is deleted, the insights this article contains will be inserted in other ''Warcraft'' related articles on a semi-random basis.  Best to keep this to collect them all in one place and keep them organized
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: On the one hand, it might be ''possible'' to write a list called ''List of possible pop culture references in Warcraft'' with entries like "After defeating a group of spiders in the wastelands, characters can obtain a sword called ''Stung'' "(citation)  In ''The Hobbit'', Bilbo Baggins obtains a similar sword, named ''Sting'', which he uses in a battle against spiders.(citation).  On the other hand, (1) this article doesn't even approach that sort of neutral, non-OR presentation, and (2) it would be pretty crufty even if it ''were'' written correctly, possibly enough to implicate .  On balance, though, I think that most of the information could be included in a non-OR fashion and properly cited, and it seems to have interested readers, so weak keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per  an indiscriminate collection of information. This is just a list of amusing observations (), not ''knowledge
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: 1) "Something anybody can observe" is most certainly  (as is "common knowledge" which in most cases the editor means "common knowledge to their demographic in their location", which is horribly systemic biasish). 2) Not everybody has access to the medias in question (WoW requires a subscription, etc) so this isn't something "anybody can observe". The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reference, however, is a start
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: It's |Original research (referenced or not), many connections are only |according to contributors, it does not demonstrate its |notability (as Tutmosis said, "When we refer to "Popular Culture" for an article, we refer to how the subject impacted it"), and, therefore, it's an OT|indiscriminate collection. Whew. Delete this before someone adds about a blood elf's "hey, get back here!" line coming from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: The very poster child of |original research.  You should not have to pay Blizzard to play an online game to verify an article any more than you should have to David Hahn|build a nuclear reactor in your backyard to verify Nuclear fission. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: editors interpreting primary sources are engaging in original research, this sort of stuff needs a secondary source (i.e. a comment from the creators of WoW). Stick to reporting primary sources, don't interpret them. A high degree of cruftitude and -ness in its indiscriminate list variety is not a plus point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)