Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamriel

Add links
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 was no consensus. The article should be rewritten to remove the 'in universe' style, and I'm one of the many who has never heard of or played Elder Scrolls, but good arguments are made to keep the article. I don't see a consensus either way at this time. KrakatoaKatie 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamriel[edit]

Tamriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable 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) 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability out of universe. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather Weak Keep. I'm a little bit apprehensive about this - Tamriel is the scene of all of the Elder Scrolls games, and I really have no objection at all of having an article about the gameworld in itself. After all, we document other gameworlds adequately and there's really no problem with that. On the other hand, perhaps the article needs a reboot and severe cleanup, but I'm not sure if that requires deletion at all. Even if the article would be deleted as is, I'm not opposed to rebuilding it from scratch in an encyclopaedic manner. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your on to something; instead of having dozens of in universe articles about the world of Elder Scrolls, why not one good out of universe one? Judgesurreal777 16:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to more definite Keep, now that I have a little bit more coffee. Yup, I think this article is definitely salvageable and we can merge stuff here. UESP.net has its fine function, we have ours; They can cover little details, we can cover overviews. Everyone's happy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wwwwolf. —dv82matt 15:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on those who know the game, this is one of the articles on it which should be kept as being comprehensive. DGG (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the issue of the nomination, which is its lack of notability, and thus verification, through reliable sourcing. You can't argue for keeping it if you can't show it has notability. Judgesurreal777 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This conversation is frustrating as it is inevitably fractured across several of these contested AFDs. I think a more nuanced view of notability on the part of the nominator would be helpful 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? —dv82matt 14:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment-"transcluding" all the reasons for keep given by the various people in the exactly similar articles above. The editors seem to have gotten tired trying to address this long series of nominations, Its much harder to reply intelligently than to use the same identical copy-and-paste argument for deletion. In brief, a notable element of a notable game. Wouldnt apply to minor details within the region--this is the way to do the articles on subject like this--the specialized wiki gets the ones on the true details. Thats the sort of content not notable enough for articles. This general one certainly is. DGG (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please show how its notable through providing reliable out of universe referencing establishing notability, we can't just take your word for it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm getting very tired with this oh-so-common misconception that WP:N and WP:FICT - guidelines meant for keeping out small mods, fanfiction and random players - forbid subpages of any kind, when they do nothing of the sort. When it is impossible to contain an encyclopedic overview in one article, notability guidelines actually allow a split: "[where subpages are split for reasons of styling or length], the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article" (WP:FICT#Notable topics point 2). This correlates with WP:SIZE, an official site accessibility policy, which encourages splits of large topics. The more astute may notice that the notability guidelines demand proof of notability for entire topics, not articles - and we know from WP:FA and WP:FT's completely seperate existences that these are not the same. This is an encyclopedia, we're supposed to write a comprehensive account of a topic (WP:WIAFA, point 1b), not just parrot national news. And I've stopped bothering addressing the usual unsubstantiated gameguide allegations that always get thrown in every gaming AfD. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All articles, including subpages, must follow and fulfill wikipedia guidelines, including WP:FICTION and verification. Wikipedia does not forbid subpages, in fact the Development and re-rating of Elder Scrolls Oblivion are now Featured articles, but that is because they more than satisfy the other wikipedia criteria, as this and all sub articles must. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines say all topics, not articles, and WP:V concerns are reasons for cleanup, not deletion (this is far from inherently unverifiable). You're evading the point; this page should not be judged seperately from it's parent topic. Enforcing a standard like that effectively does ban subpages and is directly at odds with WP:SIZE. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article." (WP:N, lede paragraph). It only applies at the article level. DGG (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is ambiguous - it can be taken to mean either way, but I'm not referring to that anyway. It's entirely appropriate to write about the setting and characters of a piece of fiction, and WP:FICT has provision for splits when these sections become too long. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia Guideline are that, guidelines, Judge you're following the rules religiously, not to mention the same two sets of rules. This could turn into an argument consisting of people pulling out sections of Wikipedia rules that follow their cause, but that would be stupid. TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot possibly use those criteria to argue an article cannot be judged with those criteria. The article fails them, and needs to be improved or deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're still evading the point. This page should not be judged as seperate from its parents and siblings. Simply reasserting your position doesn't make any difference. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would read the nominating statement, there is a very big issue for this article to still pass the mustard on. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on nominations and many arguments in other AFDs above. Wikipedia is not a game guide, period. External sources- like those found on the universe of the Lord of the Rings, for example- establish notability. Fan sites and in-universe sources do not. This and other topics should be either cut down and moved to the game page or deleted. Epthorn (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By Your standard Orc (Middle-earth) isn't notable. It doesn't have that many references, and those references are mostly book sources of Tolkien's letters. That isn't an outside source, it's straight from Tolkien's writing material. If that is acceptable then so is this.TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Orcs are notable, cf this article: Ryan J.S. 1966. German mythology applied. The extension of the literary folk memory. Folklore 77:45-59.
They are real sources, can you explain what makes them fake? Imperial Libarary is a collection of in-game texts, not speculative in any way therefore isn't typical fan site garbage.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this discussion isn't a vote, how about you outline why you think this appears to be strictly a game guide and then we'll discuss it.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then, except for the first sentence, the entire article is written in-universe, which I don't agree with as an encyclopedic article. This therefore is a description of the game as defined by it plot, characters, etc. Refering to policy WP:NOT#GUIDE (not a manual to things, WP:NOT#PLOT (not a summary of fictional writings), therefore, I continue with my belief that it should be deleted. Mbisanz (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must add, that isn't a deletion worthy flaw. Articles that are written in-universe aren't supposed to be deleted, they're supposed to be fixed. Even I agree it should be less in-universe but let's be productive and fix it.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, within the context of the video-gaming community, I do not believe this particular item in this particular game rises to the level of notability, regardless of how it is written. Now if there was say a particularly violent weapon in this game that caused a senator to hold hearings on it OR if this world was layed out using some new technique in video game technology, then maybe, and even then it would be a stretch for me. Mbisanz (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the setting for a very poular video game series starting in 1994. Settings are about as notable as they get. As for this game getting senators pissed off, it has so if you want some links I'll show you.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acutally, the setting of the game would be covered here [1] to the extent that is necessary. That page is niether overly long or congested to cover a reasonable section about the layout of the game. Yes, senators may be ticked about the GAME, but not this FEATURE of the game. Mbisanz (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody thinks that link suffices, even the nominator, a new article devoted to the world of the elder scrolls would be necessary. Let me tell you now though, detail isn't frowned upon and it isn't necessarily fancruft. For example Argonian discusses the finer points of argonian culture, it isn't close to being as notable as this article and yet remains because it is a well formed article. If we could turn every one of these article into a high quality article using that page as template we would be getting somewhere. It would be for the betterment of Wikipedia, even though some would still complain about notability it wouldn't matter and never does when it comes to a good article.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that would depend on sourcing if there is such a thing. And Argonian at least has some notability to claim for its own, even though it is small. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the notability guideline are guidelines intended to be flexible--when it is clear something is notable, we can interpret them accordingly. The sufficient available fan sources in tis case are acceptable for the purpose.08:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that are not, as a million fan sites do not always mean some kind of encyclopedic notability. And flexibility is usually given to articles that have demonstrated they have some notable referencing somewhere, not to ones that have demonstrated none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the rules are not flexible. That isn't true, Wikipedia policy is as flexible and forgiving as anything I've seen. The rules are meant to give a sort of template of what Wikipedia wants its articles to all eventually look like, it isn't some strict set of policy as WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY will tell you.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case why should the article be given "flexiblity" when there has been not one reference found to establish notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't give it flexibility, the rule is flexible, as in there is no one firm set of policy for what should be done in this case. Notability rules are disputed and it's only one rule, you can't just shut down an article because it isn't notable enough for you. I guarantee you that notability could be established through a reference found on the net. I don't see why you think there would be no notable references on the web when it is the setting of a 13 year series. Just tell me what kind notability link you're looking for and I'll find it.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline for fiction has only been "disputed" by you and User:DGG as of a day or so ago, and such efforts to dilute Wikipedias encyclopedic standards will not succeed. Now please stop pretending WP:FICTION doesn't exist and either find references or stop arguing about it, it is pointless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no it's actually the first thing you see when you open WP:FICTION. TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamriel&oldid=1138818846"