Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsweyr


 * 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, even after discounting some of the keeps that doesn't confirm to policy, relist in a few months. Secret account 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Elsweyr

 * – (View AfD) (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) 23:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete NN fails WP:FICT. All references are in universe. RMHED (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - a large amount of content on a notable game. -Senori (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well written and referenced. Borderline for notability but it's obvious that a lot of work went into this article. I don't see how Wikipedia would be improved by its deletion. —dv82matt 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How it is borderline notability? Where are the references that would hint at it? Judgesurreal777 17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Recheck the article. It has loads of refrences. It is however borderline due to not being specifically featured in a major game. I'd prefer to see it kept simply because I don't see a compelling reason to delete it so there is no reason to pointlessly antagonize the individual(s) who obviously put a lot of hard work into this article. —dv82matt 18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please recheck my rationale, as it says that all those things that look like in line citations and references are all to fan sites, and that they assert no real world notability, and making this a plot recitation masquerading as a good article. Judgesurreal777 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? I wasn't refering to your rationale but to the comment of yours which directly preceded mine. Am I to assume that you think that notability is binary rather than a continuum then? The references to fan sites are an indication (or "hint" as you put it) of notability. They are just not particularily good ones. I don't think a strong case has been made for deletion. How is the deletion supposed to improve Wikipedia? Is the deletion of this article crucial enough to risk alienating obviously talented resourceful users who are likely to contribute to other articles if they are not needlessly antagonized? —dv82matt 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't binary, but on a scale of 1 to a 100, 100 being the most notable, we are firmly at 0 on this one as there is not yet on reference to back this article up. Except for 2 or 3 users, most of the people who would keep these article fail to understand wikipedia policies or contribute regularly to creating Featured or Good articles. Judgesurreal777 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your scale is poorly constructed. Placing Elsweyr at zero one a scale of 1 to 100 indicates a binary mindset to me. Though I understand you may be frustrated, I don't think deriding others adds anything to your argument. —dv82matt 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is simply a fact! I have not seen them actively contributing at those locations, which are nexus's for quality articles. If they have, I am in error, but I don't think I am. And it is irrelevant what "mindset" I have, I follow wikipedia policies, including notability and verifiability, and that is what matters. Judgesurreal777 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't see what relevance a user's lack of contributions to the Good and Featured article processes could possibly have in relation to this AFD. If it is somehow relevant you'll have to spell it out for me. —dv82matt 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You were the one that just brought up how talented and active the users are that would be turned away or antagonized, and I said that there isn't any proof that they are very active contributors, but we are getting severely off topic. Fact is, this article has asserted no notability on any scale or measurement, and will be deleted unless it does. Judgesurreal777 22:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, well it's good to know the antecedent for your comment but it doesn't address the concern raised there at all. If you want to show my concern is unfounded you could ensure the primary contributer(s) to this article have been notified of this AFD. If they were to then post here saying that they are not opposed to deletion or are in favor of deletion I would be quite likely to modify my vote based on that. —dv82matt 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * comment Not knowing the game enough to tell personally, I ask the nom. to explain more exactly why the content of this particular article is duplicative--not a statement about articles in general, this particular one. We are not making a policy here, we are applying it to individual articles. DGG (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the burden of those who would have the article kept to show that the articleis notable in its own right. As far as duplication, its comes from the plot sections of the Elder Scroll games, and all the rest of the information beyond what is mentioned there is cruft. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of the vagueness of the answer to my question. We are supposed to be discussing this article, and the nom has given no specific comments about it . The argument is then that articles of this type should be deleted, and this is the wrong forum for that. Unless there is some indication that the content of the actual article is being addressed, i dont think this a valid nomination.~ DGG (talk)
 * Delete. Although this article has a large number of citations, they are all or nearly all to fan sites and not reliable secondary sources. There is no out-of-universe perspective, and nothing to indicate real-world notability. Therefore, the article does not meet the requirements of Notability (fiction) and should be deleted.  Pagra shtak  16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * these sites are appropriate sources for the subject. We are supposed to use common sense in this regard. DGG (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, notability must be established through secondary sources, not fan sites. Please read Notability (fiction).  Pagra shtak  18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, no this IS the place to suggest that this article be deleted because of it's type since it's type is not covered under what Wikipedia is. I understand that someone took a lot of time with the article, but that does not establish notability. I understand that this is a major element in a fictional game world, but that does not establish notability. Outside sources, not fan sites. DDG I would agree that the sources are appropriate for the subject but the subject is therefore inappropriate for wikipedia. Epthorn (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If you are suggesting that the sources are unreliable, I can tell you it isn't true. The information given is accurate to the letter. As far as TES pages this one is detailed and shows where it gets its information. That alone makes it acceptably notable, you don't see any other articles on Wikipedia under such scrutiny. I know what will be said next, get a reference of notability, I'll look for it, you guys should look for it, but really this article should not be deleted, deletion is the last option not the first. There is a level of reason that must be used, Wikipedia has no firm set of rules for what do in these situations. TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:08, 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.