Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races of The Elder Scrolls

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 no consensus. Secret ^account 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Races of The Elder Scrolls

Races of The Elder Scrolls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, as all those seemingly well cited paragraphs with inline citations are just links to fan sites, 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) 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete this 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) 23:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete more NN game cruft. RMHED (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per DGG's argument, compromise is important. RMHED (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Lots of sources, but nothing to show how the "races of Elder Scrolls" relate to anything out of universe. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A lot of information about a very notable series of games. Many sources. Better to have a single list than a seperate article for each race. —dv82matt 12:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to The Elder Scrolls. The series is probably the most popular 1st person RPG ever, and while the article could be written in a less universe form, if you assume that this is a fork from The Elder Scrolls, none of the reasons at WP:DEL#REASON apply. Burzmali 13:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the last two, notability is not inherited, so just because Elder Scrolls is notable, doesn't mean every article on it is also. And "Many sources", are you referring to the huge number of fan sites? None of those count without some real world sources to back them up. Judgesurreal777 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying every article on The Elder Scrolls is notable. In fact I've voted "delete" on several and abstained from voting "keep" on the majority of your recent AFD nominations. However I do feel that a few core articles documenting the in game universe from an out of universe perspective are warranted. —dv82matt 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And I would agree with you if there was a demonstration in any of them of real world sourcing, but there isn't. Judgesurreal777 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you nom'd this for deletion while simultaneously nominating Argonian for GA- the only race not included into this article. --PresN 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Because that article, out of dozens of these Elder Scrolls articles, had a little bit of actual concept and creation information. Judgesurreal777 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It would seem that a combination article is the way to go for material such as this. But the same rationale is being used as for the individual races. This does not make sense to me, as they are very different articles. Why not simply merge the others into articles like this? DGG (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be because all but one of them appears to have zero notability, and all put together they also have zero notability like this article. Why combine non notable articles to have one bigger unencyclopedic unreferenced plot repetition? Judgesurreal777 21:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

there is no requirement at all for article content to be notable, just relevant. The subject as a whole is what needs to be notable, and it would seem obvious that the races in general in a series of games are a notable part of the content. DGG (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that. But there isn't one reference showing this article's topic, or any sentences in it, are notable.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is a well sourced article (or as well sourced as a game article can be), it might need improvement in some areas. Why does it fail notability? Because no international newspaper has written about the Dwemer race? Also, the rationale you give for this article is the exact same one you apply to all your other deletions. How is this article duplicative? Yes, Wikipedia is not a gameguide but this article doesn't read like a game guide, it merely describes notable elements from the Elder Scrolls universe. mensch • t 14:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The plot of the Elder Scroll games is already in the Elder Scroll game articles! And also, no developers have talked about how they developed the races, there are no development sketches, or frankly anything that shows this is notable to anyone but those who have played the game, and this is what it must have to be kept. Gotta find some references or its just plot recitation, or "junk". Judgesurreal777 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I found it notable. I reading about dwarves, and this represents a pop view on the subject.

64.119.129.74 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Useful is not a keep reason I'm afraid. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Let's not be silly here. Judge, I've got to hand it to you, the articles you nominate usually don't have sources, this article does QED.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets say this one more time so everyone can hear it, THERE ARE NO REFERENCES IN THIS ARTICLE. That would be because the "references" that are here are just links to FAN SITES, which is not what WP:FICTION calls for. Once you read and understand this policy, you will realize what I'm talking about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• For starters, all you care about are references of notability, not secondary sources, which I might add are more important. This page is heavily sourced and pretty good, I don't see why you want to delete it. Never mind I do know why, it just isn't a very good reason when it comes to an article like this. Even RHMED disagrees with you, which is saying something as he is your partner in TES AFDs. These references alone establish notability. Example, lets say I've stumbled upon a really non-notable article, like a world of warcraft guild. Nobody has heard of or cares about said guild, so there are no references, if I try to add references I can't because they don't exist because there are no secondary sources and no coverage by any sort of media. The fact that this has sources, which are shown in the article is demonstration enough that this article is 10 times more notable then anything you get when you hit the random article button. I just hit the button, got an article for a Swedish Punk band's album, it hasn't been deleted, likely shouldn't be and I suppose I would have a tough time finding reliable sources of notability. If you are so intent on evidence that this is notable how about you find the reference and you put it in. I don't see why this has to fall on me just because I want to keep the article. Oh an Imperial library isn't really a fan site, it's more of a comprehensive list of texts found in game, basically it is a web-translation of material found in the game. Not every thing in the world has an article in the New York times, what are you looking for, some random media article discussing the merits of Oblivion races? You wouldn't find that on a Halo article and from what I've noticed you do work on, not delete halo pages. TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am not teaming with anyone, people agree with most of the nominations because they should be deleted for violating policy. And what you say in the second half of your paragraph is right on the money; as it doesn't have the kind of notability that would be, say, referenced in the new york times, or even developers interview information, it doesn't have the amount of notability required for its own wikipedia article. With regard to Halo, there are still several articles that may have to be deleted/merged, but the Halo topic, by virtue of its popularity and referencing, has many Good Articles. I am not nominating them to be deleted as there are people working on the topic very actively who will merge and redirect if necessary. And finally, I simply made the suggestion as to what you could do to help keep the article, as arguing with me about policy, as you should know by now, is not a particularly fruitful pastime unless you just want me to teach you about WP:FICTION. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The article that got deleted were of piss-poor quality, this article is clearly different. Even if this article fails notability, which I don't believe it does, that doesn't matter if it is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, as in Wikipedia is better for having it. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules would be the policy I'd use for this, because a rule is preventing me from maintaining this article. There aren't many pages that establish their own importance, if you really wanted notability you would accept a media article mentioning the many races you can choose in game.TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge per DDG's rationale to a notable article. This has no notability outside the game universe; if someone wants to put it into the game's article (which does have notability), I would not be adverse to that although I suspect it would have to be in drastically reduced form. The references do not satisfy WP's notability standards, as noted above. Contrast this to the many scholarly works that have been written on Darth Vader or Hobbits, etc. Epthorn (talk) 08:15, 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.