Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mages Guild

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mages Guild, The Arena Guild, The Fighters Guild, The Dark Brotherhood, The Thieves Guild

Guilds for online MMORPG, delete  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment- Actually, they are guilds in a single player PC/Xbox 360 game yet to be released. That barely helps the case for keeping them though. VegaDark 05:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment you missed two guilds in the same series, which I added above. -- Megamix? 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thanks  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsalvageably incoherent. Gazpacho 11:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non Notable.Obina 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gotta whack 'em all! I choose YOU!  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Destruction. ' I can't click that! contribs 15:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NeoJustin 17:01, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Other than the arena guild, they're all present in Daggerfall and Morrowind, as well as Oblivion. The articles as they stand, though, are an incoherent attempt at a game guide. Even if cleaned up, at best they would belong on Wikibooks, but there's no need to transwiki content as poor as this. Delete (and also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Brotherhood). —Cryptic (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - These subjects are notable enough for a wikipedia article. These are major factions which have played a large part in the Elder Scrolls universe. We have articles for some of the races of the series, like Dwemer, so if these articles were of reasonable quality, I'd definitely vote keep. The Elder Scroll series of games have a very rich history, there are literally pages and pages of texts within the games, most of it is lore and background detail. One could build up a very comprehensive article on each of the guids mentioned here. It is a shame that these articles really aren't very good, but I really don't think they should have been lumped together in an AFD like this. I mean, the article on The Dark Brotherhood is actually coherent, and so is The Thieves Guild, however, the other three by User:Daedric Prince are not. So Keep those 2, and delete the rest. - Hahnchen 02:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The content is very bad, but the topics are as notable as any other game elements. -- jaredwf 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I rewrote The Dark Brotherhood and The Mages Guild, partially rewrote The Fighters Guild and The Thieves Guild, but The Arena Guild cannot be rewrote since it has not been in previous games. -- jaredwf 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - If the consensus is to delete, here are some other factions with articles: House Telvanni, House Hlaalu, House Redoran, House Dagoth, and Morag Tong. -- jaredwf 09:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep only if they are in game elements. I can't really tell at this point. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as gamer guild vanity. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:12, Jan. 4, 2006
    • Comment: Just to let you know, they are not gamer guilds at all. They are in-game factions with in-game lore for a series of single-player games. They are not vanity for the same reasons that Jedi and Sith are not vanity despite appearing in games. Jedi and Sith are more notable so these guilds might be deleted for notability, but not for vanity. -- jaredwf 02:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable rubbish. Incognito 05:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn fancruft Werdna648T/C\@ 08:06, 9 January 2006 (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.