Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Morrowind

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 delete. Secret ^account 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of Morrowind

Characters of Morrowind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability out of universe, create a soft redirect to the Elder Scrolls Wiki. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There is a previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Morrowind. —dv82matt 14:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Articles about the characters in notable video games are pretty standard fodder for Wikipedia. —dv82matt 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The game is notable, true, but the question at hand is for this article, and it has not yet established its own notability. Judgesurreal777 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you peruse the previous AFD? Not saying that consensus can't change but the consensus was that it was a notable article then. —dv82matt 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But there was no proof then, and there has been no proof established this time either. Judgesurreal777 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There was consensus, that is the burden that must be met. This conversation is frustrating as it is inevitably fractured across several of these contested AFDs. I think a more nuanced view of notability on your part would be helpful for you to understand where others are coming from on this. Rigidly applying an idea of notability based on refrences would result in deleting many unquestionably notable articles and also creating many unnotable articles simply because references meeting WP:RS have been turned up. On another note the idea expressed in the rationale that the information in this article is duplicative seems manifestly bogus. Duplicative with what? I agree that wikipedia doen't need two of these articles so if you can point to where it is all duplicated I will agree to deleting one of the instances. —dv82matt 14:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Combination articles like this are the preferred way to go, rather than articles on the individual characters. Possible over-quick nomination. It is required to link to the earlier afds, so i wonder if the nom has even read the article--especially as nothing in the nomination refers to it specifically.04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Why would we merge it, as it has no notability or references? There would be little point to combine it if it has no encyclopedic value, that's why its up for deletion. Judgesurreal777 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

the idea is to merge into it, not to merge it. That the characters in general of a major game are notable can not just be dismissed by saying it has "no encyclopedic content". I can make that assertion about any article. Nonencyclopedic seems to equal idontlikeit. 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I think I have been very clear about what unencyclopedic means; fails notability and verifiability. If it passes them, it is encyclopedic. Plot repetition on its own is not encyclopedic, but that teamed with critical analysis equals encyclopedic article. Judgesurreal777 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of characters is not the same as a discussion of plot. We have a practice that an article should be more than a plot summary, but that should not be used to delete all articles about fiction. There is no requirement that articles in WP in general contain "critical analysis" -- the description of significant cultural and other material is encyclopedic.DGG (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Those were merely suggestions of the type of information required by WP:FICTION, I am attempting to explain it to you and others who do not understand that simple plot repetition is entirely insufficient. Judgesurreal777 08:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right that I do not understand that a comprehensive collection from a different point of view than plot is a repetition--you would limit us to one article about each major work.DGG (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If the articles you would keep are as "major" as you say they are, you surely should be able to produce the not yet found references that this article so desperately needs. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I can understand why you want to delete individual articles on small details of a fictional universe containing a lot of in-game trivia but why oppose all of these articles? Character lists are a perfectly normal practice on Wikipedia. And yes these articles need a lot of work, but after they are properly sourced they can be included. Why do the endless episode and character lists (there are even weapon lists...) on Star Trek characters still exist? I personally don't like Star Trek and I don't want to know what happend in the gazillionth season in episode 65, but that doesn't mean it might or might not be notable. Your proposed mass deletions (you're - solely it seems - involved in quite a lot of them) come a across as being a bit unconstructive. Why not improve and reduce the articles instead of completely deleting them? mensch • t 14:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For every article I propose to delete, even more are created, so I am not exactly decimating Wikipedia by getting ride of these articles. Its a normal practice, but you will see the vast majority of these articles are not notable, and only a few, such as Characters of Kingdom Hearts, and the Featured article on the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, have enough material to constitute an encyclopedic article. That is the standard we are shooting for, so we are deleting ones that show they have no hope. To understand why it doesn't have hope, read this WP:FICTION. Judgesurreal777 16:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this article has no primary sources to verify its content, no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability, nor has it any encyclopedic content, as it primarily plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as article makes no attempt to establish real-life notability of its own accord. Epthorn (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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.