Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

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 keep. John254 00:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion[edit]

I just don't see why there should be such a massive article devoted to one aspect of one game. Looking over the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article, I see little that isn't in there that is particularly needed. While well-referenced, the level of detail to me seems to approach ridiculous levels. David Fuchs 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure it fails WP:NOT by a strict reading, but I must concur with the nominator - this is a level of detail to a specific topic that is not appropriate for a general knowledge encyclopedia. A merge might be proper, but I suspect not needed as the main article has a healthy "development" section already. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no guidelines of any kind on "level of detail", other than that the detailed information must be either be explaining a more notable whole, or that the details must have been covered by reliable sources specifically about them. The latter is the case here: many reliable sources have written articles specifically about the development of Oblivion, making the development of the game suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, with as much information as the sources and article length allow. The article fits WP:SIZE.
I agree with the above editors that the level of detail is approaching ridiculous levels. However, that is not because of this Wikipedia article, but because the amount of pre-game hype around games in major franchises exceeds all normal proportions. Not including this in Wikipedia would be terribly WP:IDONTLIKEIT: it is not up to us, Wikipedia editors, to exclude this if reliable sources have written about it. Changing the games press does not start here. Finally, "Detailed Histories" (what this article is) is not on WP:NOT#INFO. --User:Krator (t c) 15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Krator. This article was split so as to comply with WP:SIZE and WP:SS recommendations. If we are to begin deleting policy compliant articles solely for their level of detail, then these guidelines are dangerously misleading. Geuiwogbil 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the main topic has established notability, there are no limits on the degree of expansion. If someone can trim it with reasonable justification (repetitions, hype, OR, etc.), go for it. Othewise there is no inherent harm to have it. `'Mїkka 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another detailed, well-written, referenced article that I imagine has been branched out of the parent article at some point. WP:PAPER —Xezbeth 16:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is basically a time line of events during the development of the game. I think preview articles on the game give the topic notability Corpx 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Yikes. This is incredibly anal-retentive detail, definitely indiscriminate, and dare I say it -- crufty. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is indiscriminate the new buzzword? Even in that ridiculously overlinked to WP page, none of those five points relate to this article. —Xezbeth 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, beyond that, it provides no guidance. It seems we must rely on Dictionary.com for our policy clarification:
in·dis·crim·i·nate (ĭn'dĭ-skrĭm'ə-nĭt) adj.

1. Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective: an indiscriminate shopper; indiscriminate taste in music.

2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale.

3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration.

4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending.

Now, which one of those is this article supposed to be? Geuiwogbil 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like #4. Certainly is a large piece for one video game and its development. I have yet to see a video game article at FA that has that long a dev section. David Fuchs 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess that makes me the first! Geuiwogbil 21:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is foolish. Geuiwogbil 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While you all are here, could one of you assess this article for GAC, or provide helpful, peer-review style commentary? Geuiwogbil 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Geuiwogbil 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Not seeing any valid reason to delete. A detailed and well referenced article on a notable subject is a good thing. Deleting an article because it covers its subject too well? Absurd.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable facet of the game, valid subarticle. Still, it's overly long and falls into minutae about how Bethesda set up their E3 demo room. I'd vote to delete ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion though, an utterly inconsequential piece of non-news, but then again we do have lots of other inconsequential pieces of non news like Essjay and Joshua Gardner. - hahnchen 19:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Now you've got your chance! Fuchs has nominated it for deletion too! Wonder where he got that idea? Geuiwogbil 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)~~ That bit was somewhat rude. Apologies. Geuiwogbil 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-researched, thoroughly referenced, notability established, obvious keep. — brighterorange (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced article on a notable aspect of a notable game. I could see deleting it if it was on a fictional in universe topic like Development of the Death Star, but this is real world info that is covered in multiple reliable sources. If there are elements of the article that don't meet policy we can just remove them, the article itself should stay. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well researched and referenced, thus, making it exactly as detailed as required --omtay 38 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is an article on Development history of The Elder Scrolls series with a section on this; this could be absorbed into that, however, that article is long enough as is. This article does go into more detail possible than the main Oblivion article. Could do with some chopping down, but the topic warrants some decent coverage. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was also put up for deletion by David Fuchs --omtay 38 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into the general development article. I'd prefer a merge because the content is all real-world and not a mix; however, an entire real-world article is a nice precedent, as it shows that fiction writers are also interested in the out-of-universe aspects (and it clearly passes WP:N and doesn't seem too indiscriminite, if a little overly detailed). This entire AfD is a serious problem; why are we discouraging subarticles on real-world aspects, when we are all obsessed with keeping subarticles on in-universe aspects? Think about it: you are sending the wrong message. Deletion is a ~~simpleton and childish~~ poor approach to problems like this; fix it appropriately by starting a merge proposal, and have respect for the people who are trying to set a precedent here. — Deckill er 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the keep vote, but I can't make out what you're suggesting in the first few sentences. What does the "it" in "it's all real-world" refer to? The content to be merged or the article into which the content will be merged? Do you like real-world/not real-world mixes, or do you dislike them? What would be setting a precedent? The merge? Not having an AFD? Who's trying to set precedent? Me? Fuchs? You? Geuiwogbil 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the message; I wrote it as I was heading out the door. — Deckill er 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Geuiwogbil 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, attributed article and meets notability. I oppose to merge into Development history of The Elder Scrolls series because it will increase highly article size. Carlosguitar 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable subject, appropriate as its own article due to length. Everyking 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since the article is this long, it is clearly notable enough to stand alone as an article. I also just reviewed and passed this article for GA.--Danaman5 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the "Elder Scrolls" games beyond what I just read in Wikipedia.] This is a multi-award winning, very popular game and thus highly notable. Therefore the development of the game deserves a place in Wikipedia. However given the lengthy and detailed description, this aspect of the game's background needs its own article. Axl 09:03, 14 July 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.