Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESRB re-rating 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Mmm... crufty. No giant press attention (as the article even states!), not anything to the extent of the Hot Coffee Mod, and could certainly be merged into the main article. Really, all it needs is three lines in the main article. David Fuchs 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Mmm...WP:POINTy. Multiple, substantial sources, if you'd care to peruse the reference section. Geuiwogbil 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How am I violating WP:POINT? Someone in the other AfD brought up this article. I am not actively trolling to delete Oblivion articles. David Fuchs 20:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it just seemed like you jumped on that suggestion so quickly. You gave me a mild headache. You might not have been disrupting Wikipedia, but you were certainly disrupting me. Geuiwogbil 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And your failure to assume good faith gave me a nosebleed, so lets keep it relevent to the nomination shall we? DarkSaber2k 10:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The detail that someone has gone into documenting what should be little more than a footnote to Oblivion is staggering. I do not make the recommendation to delete such a massive amount of (good) work lightly. I'm likely going to end up in the minority voice here as with the AfD on the game's development history (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion) as there really isn't a specific policy proscribing it but I feel that this level of hyperintimate detail to a relatively minor facet of the overall topic of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is just not appropriate to a general-knowledge encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The best thing I could cite is the first of WP:FIVE. This stuff just is not encyclopedia material. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to comply with WP:NOT, though, which is policy, rather than vague rumination with no grounding in Wiki regulations. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Geuiwogbil 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have no problems with the number of articles or the length thereof, it's more just a philosophical notion of what belongs in an encyclopedia or not. Admittedly my argument isn't well rooted in policy so it's a bit on the weak side, I just felt a need to express it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I, too, have a philosophical notion of what belongs in an encyclopedia: everything. A beautiful compilation of all the works of Man and God, arranged by topic, refined to perfection in endless detail, and elucidated with elegance, humility, and charm. A "syntopicon", if you will, of the universe without and the universe within. I suppose that might make me a little bit of an idealist, but where would the world be without a healthy dose of idealism? WP:UNENCYC is meaningless as an argument. Geuiwogbil 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems this article was created as a branch from The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to clean up the article. My original instinct was to merge, but because it has already been separated, I'll go with keep. -- omtay 38  20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Branching a big article off to smaller ones is sometimes a good idea, but in this case it isn't. Condense, don't just branch out to many articles. It's crufty, trivial and so on. You can source many things, it doesn't make it notable as a branched off article. RobJ1981 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Careful with your words, traveler. You say many things that sound like typical deletion arguments, but do not, in fact, hold true to this case. The meaning of words in the general sense is not the meaning which they hold in policy discussions. "Notable", for example, does not mean "Worthy of note". It means having "Significant reliable coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject". Now, I believe that the sources from GameSpot, Gamasutra, and The Escapist offer significant coverage, enough to provide a detailed outline of the subject; are independent of the ESRB's rating procedures; and are quite reliable. (Which is another tangled subject altogether but one which, I assure you, if delved into, would end with a singular confirmation of reliability.) Similarly, "trivial" in the sense of WP:TRIVIA does not mean "avoid facts which a general consensus of Wiki editors feels are unimportant", (We have no guide for that, we follow reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT holds no water as an argument.) it refers to our guideline which states "Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts only loosely regarding the topic." It makes no judgment as to the validity of the facts themselves. I do not even need to discuss "cruft", since "WP:CRUFT" is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and a rather contentious one at that. Geuiwogbil 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite. Brevity is wit. The subject is good, though too many words are used to describe it. --User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Re-voted with more arguments below. As the votes don't matter, but the arguments do, I am striking out this one. --User:Krator (t c) 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm really not a fan of the "it's too long/detailed" argument. &mdash;Xezbeth 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Omtay38. It is sourced properly as well. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Geuiwogbil 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Really trivial news item. Anything of relevance can be merged back into the main article. This literally takes 2 lines to explain.  Anything else is minutiae. - hahnch e n 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No relevant argument can be found in the above comment. What, is it WP:JNN? Geuiwogbil 08:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're obviously not looking hard enough. - hahnch e n 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is, I can't discern what technical argument you're using. "Minutiae"? "Trivia"? I'm not aware of any policy which gives a definition for such potentially loaded terms. No need to be calling responses "idiot" [sic]. Geuiwogbil 00:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I stare at this and say delete it. I read it and I say keep it. I didn't think I could admit an article about topless women and excessive violence could be encyclopedic and informative, but I confess it is. The sources are there, the prose is there, I just can't find a reason to delete it. I'm torn, and not in "Teen" kind of way, but I'll stand with a good consciousness as a keep vote.--Clyde (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep wikipedia isn't paper and "cruft" is not a deletion argument. The article cites its reliable sources, meets our notability guidelines and our inclusion policies, so it's clearly a keeper. You guys don't think anybody would ever want to research video game ratings or hidden-adult-content-unlocking mods? &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple sources, definitely seems to be notable in the gaming industry Guycalledryan 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete excessively long article about a topic that already is covered in the main article. Resolute 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Excessively long"? "Already covered in the main article"? This is what WP:PAPER and WP:SS warned against. Geuiwogbil 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about WP:RECENT? The main article covers the topic sufficiently, and there is plenty of room to add a little more, if you like, without unbalancing it, or making it too much larger. This article itself asserts multiple times that the changes hardly garnered notice from the public or gaming journalists  Resolute 13:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENT is an essay, not a policy, not a guideline. As a sidenote, the essay states that "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion—lack of attributability and notability are", which seemed interesting enough to me. Geuiwogbil 13:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I am not proposing the deletion of the information, as it is already covered in the main article. Resolute 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, it's just "excessively long"? That just...baffles me. Geuiwogbil 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Just because this is finely written should not be a reason to keep.  Delete per WP:NOT, which says "something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article".  Corpx 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Can any of the keep voters justify how this is not a violation of WP:NOT ? The article itself says "events passed by with little outward concern from the either the public at large or gaming journalists in particular."  The only outcomes of this incident, per the article, was that two publicity seeking individuals used it for their gain (and somebody wrote about it in their blog).  Just because an article is well written does not mean it should get a free pass if its in violation of policy.  Corpx 07:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a reflection of the continuing crisis in video game violence as perceived by the public; it's a tangential effect of the Hot Coffee Mod, involving the same organization, the same publicity-seeking individuals, the same corporation publishing the game. It is one of only three games the ESRB has ever decided to re-rate. It reflects on ESRB policy towards third-party mods, bound to be of increasing relevance in an age dominated by user content. This isn't some cat stuck in a tree or white girl kidnapped in the Bahamas; it's an industry-wide issue. WP:NOT, in any case, seems to be something drummed up to make sure our WP:BLP standards stick, more than anything else; those things it specifically cautions against, this article does not do; the only area where you seem to have some type of argument is "long-term historical notability", which seems to be a criterion anyone can read anything into. Geuiwogbil 07:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think an encyclopedia is the place for "reflection" on any social issue. If anything, this should be mentioned as part of something ilke "Perception of video games", but I'm not sure if that can be written without any WP:OR, while maintaining WP:NPOV. I would characterize this re-rating incident as something that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would show up to protest. (Examples). Corpx 07:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Goodness, Corpx, I wasn't saying that material should be in the article. Notability isn't something which needs to be put down point for point in the article, it's a property of the article that's made manifest by analysis. We let our readers decide what these events mean, over and beyond reporting on what others have thought of them. To Jack Thompson, this is but one further example of the failures of the ESRB. Thompson even goes so far as to state that this event is an "even worse disaster than last year's' [sic] "Hot Coffee" scandal". To John Romero, this is one step on the way to a content-protected future. That's the notability. I can't make you see the notability. I can only tell you what others think the notability of these events are. Geuiwogbil 07:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not arguing the notability. I'm arguing that this is "something has been in the news for a brief period of time".     Corpx 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That criterion states that being in the news for a brief period of time doesn't make something notable. It says nothing in the direction of "if something has been in the news for only a brief period of time, it's non-notable." Zenke's article on the issue, in any case, came one full year after the events themselves. We "properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events", whatever that's supposed to mean. If something has "long-term historical notability" despite being covered only briefly, then it should be kept. If you aren't arguing the notability, you aren't arguing anything. Geuiwogbil 08:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By that definition, any news story covered by major press would warrant an article on wikipedia.  Zenke's article is the only one published this year specifically about this topic and I would consider that as an update to the story.   Rest of the stories published this month only include trivial mentions along with GTA (which set the precedent).    A search for other articles printed this year comes up with nothing else.   This article belongs at wikinews.  Corpx 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What definition? I didn't give any "definition". I'm pointing out that what the policy states can in no way be used to prove non-notability. It just cannot necessarily be used to prove the inverse. In any case, this is still an issue, as your search proved. Not only has it provided even more sources to develop the article originating in the midmonths of 2006, it has shown that the ratings change has influenced PEGI and given cause for reconsideration of the events in this month alone. That certainly seems like a set of long term effects, and this is not an update. It doesn't seem sensible to not cover this subject because it was the subject of media interest once. There is a straight line between Hot Coffee and this, or so it has been noted in various RS; trying to occlude that line, to relegate this to an unwholesome footnote, avoids proper discussion of the consequences of the Hot Coffee mod, at the very least. This event set precedent in terms of user-created content. That's long-term notability right there. Why the urge to delete? Why limit the coverage? I broke this off from Oblivion because I felt it could be covered in detail here, and covered in summary form there. A mere footnote does not befit this content; valuable information about the ESRB review process, about the rationales of the various actors involved, gives context and detail to what would otherwise be caricature. That detail gives a deeper understanding to a variety of encyclopedic topics, such as Hot Coffee, the legality and ethics of game modifications, to the ESRB, to Jack Thompson, to the nature of the media circus; that's notable information, if notability has to mean something beyond what WP:N states. I don't know what I'm arguing against. What would it take you, Corpx, to change your vote? What would I have to prove to you? What evidence would I have to show? How should I write this article, Corpx? What do you want? Geuiwogbil 21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Zenke certainly thinks it's notable. "The speed with which the ESRB revoked the 'T' rating should have publishers of mod-able games thinking hard about their priorities. Which is more important: a thriving mod community, or a rating you can bank on?" "'Game 3.0' concepts, talked about extensively at Sony's GDC event earlier this year, rely heavily on community input and outside content to make them 'sticky,' in a social sense. Sony's Phil Harrison spoke calmly about the ability for Home users to mute offensive speech and ignore users with pornography-filled personal spaces. In that light, the ESRB's 'Game Experience May Change During Online Play' seems like a gross understatement, the possibility for abuse too tempting for those with lots of time and little perspective to ignore. LittleBigPlanet is even more fraught with problems, as it is more traditionally a game. Will Sony provide personnel to review every fan-made level for offensive content? Will the ESRB? If Barbie-doll breasts can get a game re-rated, consider the dangers of introducing hardcore pornography into a LittleBigPlanet level." "While Hot Coffee will not soon be forgotten, the ESRB's decision on Oblivion should have shaken the world harder. A game had to pass through the re-ratings ghetto because of the work of one free-minded individualist. Under assault from thousands of griefers anxious to share the goatse picture with everyone that passes by, how can collaborative games hope to hold up?"
 * I was going to add some further material along this line to the article, but I was busy elsewhere. Geuiwogbil 07:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "ESRB's decision on Oblivion should have shaken the world harder" - It should've, but it didnt.  Corpx 07:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not your place, Corpx, to decide what's notable and what isn't. Titanic changes in the world can take place without anyone ever noticing a thing. When notable people do notice such things, reflected in a single event, and then proceed to make note of them in reliable sources, that should be noted. Notable people have decided that this is a notable event. That's worth more than your laconic "It should've, but it didn't." Geuiwogbil 08:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not saying this is not notable! I'm just saying that this incident does not have "long-term historical notability of persons and event".  The hot coffee mod does, because it created the precedent of recalling stuff. Corpx 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - sections exist for a reason and half the info can be taken out - there are way too many quotes, including, ""No rest for the weary here!" said game producer Gavin Carter", and a lot of the other stuff is trivial.-- daniel  folsom  17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, you're voting for the wrong article. Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is over here. This article doesn't have that quotation. Geuiwogbil 17:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, actually I was voting for this and looking at the wrong article, but hey, a lotta the same applies - thanks though-- daniel  folsom  17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was also put up for deletion by David Fuchs -- omtay 38  19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge details into the main article, which only has one paragraph. Expanding that to 2 or 3 based on these details sounds fine. &mdash; Deckiller 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with the following arguments:
 * No policy that qualifies an article for deletion applies here.
 * WP:PAPER. There is no technical reason this article cannot be kept.
 * Deleting this will create a horrible precedent for future deletions. "Crufty" is not a reason for deletion on its own. What we classify as cruft is extensively covered in WP:NOT. Essentially, this article would be deleted because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. Deleting articles just because an ad hoc majority does not like it is a Bad Thing.
 * Almost no people will read this whole article. I'd willing to bet some money for that. That is not a reason for deletion though.
 * --User:Krator (t c) 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable subject, appropriate as its own article due to length. Everyking 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into main article. Mrmoocow 06:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, well written (Good Article), well referenced, notable subject. - ARC Gritt TALK 11:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Condense and Merge into main article. It doesn't need a whole article itself. Fin©™ 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable subject, and a GA Giggy  UCP 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The large number of reliable sources cited in ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion clearly establishes notability. John254 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It would be very scary to have a high quality article like this be lost on dubious grounds. Judgesurreal777 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, should not even be up for deletion. Has multiple sources etc... Mathmo Talk 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has multiple reliable sources meaning it passes notability and is verifiable. Fail to see the problem really. DarkSaber2k 10:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established, well sourced, article does much more than discuss one small facet of Oblivion - it also shows what happens if and when games get re-rated by this body, shows the politics and views of censorship surrounding videogames and shows examples of modding causing ripples (and indeed nipples). It's articles like these which cover things peripheral issues which are damned useful but all too often original research or unreferenced. QuagmireDog 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-written and well-referenced. You say it's not notable because people didn't protest in droves like the Hot Coffee mod, but I say it's even more notable because of the completely different reaction (read: barely any reaction) this issue got in comparison to the Hot Coffee extravaganza. Is it because it's a game that's not as popular as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? Is it because most 12-year olds don't have the attention span for a game like this, in comparison to the ADD-like GTA series, and therefore because its target audience is older, nudity/violence/etc. in the game doesn't matter as much despite its ESRB rating? Interesting topic in my opinion. Sdornan 01:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, notability is NOT in question here.  What's in question is whether this incident has "long-term historical notability" per WP:NOT.  Corpx 02:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it does, certainly more than the Ten Commandments for Drivers. Sdornan 02:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's more, reliable sources believe it does. Zenke thinks so, Kotaku thinks so, ("But was the Oblivion problem a blip on the radar screen, or a sign of larger future problems lurking in the distance?") Shacknews thinks so. Anyone who has commented on its "long-term historical notability" thinks so. Geuiwogbil 02:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, events which may lead to developers being responsible for what modders do is historically notable, a footnote added to the last citation in the article (which is actually a Kotaku article, not the Escapist itself) refers to it being a slow burning issue which may haunt developers in the future. It was notable enough to get its own article in The Escapist, it got people upskittled, it got Romero spitting etc. etc.

I don't see anything resembling indiscriminate information here, nor an article about Sonic the Hedgehog's favourite breakfast cereal, nor do I see WP:NOT as being relevant when the article passes WP:V and WP:N so well. 'Not News' wraps "long term notability", BLP and neutrality under the same heading, which to me says it's first and foremost a stopguard against potentially harmful articles and articles created from extremely biased sources. Long term notability is asking for filler-news articles to be shown the door or is asking contributors to predict the future. Either the subject intertwines with other subjects or has potential to cause other notable circumstances in the future, or it does not. This subject does intertwine with other issues surrounding game censorship, modding, maturing game audiences etc. etc., there are citations saying so. To pick the bones any further is as meaningful as spinning a bottle. QuagmireDog 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - While at first glance this made think it was another fan created article that was too specific of a topic to stand on its own, I have to say that after reading it I changed my mind. The main article does already explains how it impacted the game itself, but this article does that and goes into greater depth of the explanation and includes information on the industry and public impact. I think it's a good encyclopedic article. Also, (call me a prude) on a side note, I do think the picture of the topless women should be moved further down the article. My two cents (Guyinblack25 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep is verifiable and has coverage from multiple reliable sources. -- MisterHand   (Talk to the Hand|Contribs)  14:42, 18 July 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.