Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Rock


 * 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 Delete. Problems with this articles flagged by the nominator have not been addressed.  BLACK KITE  18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

High Rock

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, 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) 18:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notability outside of the game; no out-of-universe context. Marasmusine 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not satisfy Notability (fiction).  Pagra shtak  16:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N, WP:FICT, etc. Fin©™ 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Big surprise. There is an information base at imperial library, and it is the setting for one of the games, which makes it notable enough.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, as WP:FICTION explains. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So what is your definition of a reliable secondary source? TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the featured articles on fictional stuff Master Chief (Halo), Jack Sparrow, Link (Legend of Zelda), or Padme Amidala; the whole section where the concept was developed is linked to articles that are interviews with creators of the fictional thing in question, or to overviews of the creation process, stuff like that. It is these Elder Scroll articles inability to be made to look like these articles that is the problem. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't possibly expect the same level of media links for this as you would from Master Chief and Link, two video game media darlings and Jack Sparrow? Come on, you can't expect that kind of notability from this, there is notability but not enough to rival Master Chief. It is notable enough to stay here but I'm more concerned that Wikipedia gains nothing from losing this article and is better off with this tidbit of information. Is suppose you still want your notability link, but I'm not sure specifically what, like media articles or what? TostitosAreGross (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument here is exactly that of the nominator. We can't expect the same level of notability from High Rock, because it simply isn't that notable. Thus, Wikipedia should not have a separate article for it.  Pagra shtak  18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that only articles that are huge international phenomenons like Jack Sparrow and Master Chief are notable. That is inherently ridiculous, not everything in the world is an international video game poster child like the Chief. It's still notable, just not featured in Time magazine as an example of growing video game markets.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's why we have articles on World of Final Fantasy VIII, which has never achieved a huge level of fan following but there is still enough for a Good and eventually featured article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the elder scrolls series never achieved a huge level of fan following? There are many perfectly acceptable articles on other fiction series that have a similar level of notability. TostitosAreGross (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Elder Scrolls is notable, yes. That's why we have The Elder Scrolls. However, this particular part of that universe is not notable by itself. An article about the world of TES would most likely be permissible, but tens of articles about each piece individually is not.  Pagra shtak  23:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A locations of TES page is neccesary because some location articles really don't stand up on their own, some other pages like this one and especially Black Marsh are of a standard of quality that allows them to have individual articles. I'll give you an example, Races of The Elder Scrolls is a fine article and compilation of the many races. Unfortunatly Judge wants to delete that too but that's another issue, it mentions Argonians as a race but mostly points towards the Argonian individual article. So a compilation article works and if you happen to have a high quality sub-article, then you should simply include the link and a brief summary on the compilation page. Oh and by the way Black Marsh just got deleted, fuck me sideways, that was a good one too.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unfortunately, there is a precedent for this. Most of the articles concerning different aspects of the Elder Scrolls games (including locations like this one) have already been deleted recently, and this one is nothing new. I suppose that if you wanted to know about this kind of stuff, you would have to do research outside of Wikipedia, since none of this seems to be regarded with high importance on Wikipedia. Comandante42 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As with Tamriel, This is a description of an aspect of a game as defined by it plot, characters, etc. It is written in universe in the style of a guide, manual, or fanfic. Refering to policy WP:NOT (not a manual to things, WP:NOT (not a summary of fictional writings), therefore, I believe that it should be deleted.-- Mbisanz (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please consider this, deletion is the LAST option not the FIRST. Wikipedia guidelines are explicit when it comes to this matter, efforts for improvement should be made. You know this article isn't fatally flawed, those kinds of articles are noticeable from a mile away. So please try to be a contributor not a destroyer.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree that deletion should be reserved for articles that fail to meet the coverage of the encyclopedia. The issue of fatally flawed to me simply means that this article is not so fatally flawed as to warrant a Speedy Deletion.  Rather, as it covers a topic that may be better merged with another article or which in another context (say Endor from from star wars) might be notable.  As it is already mentioned to the extent of its notability within the  Elder Scrolls article, I continue with my belief for High Rock's deletion.  Further, I am not an article destroyer.  If you examine my record, I have created several articles and worked extensivly to improve the spelling/formatting of hundreds of articles to make them more presentable  Mbisanz (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a point actually, when it comes to articles that are a tad basic like this one. As for Cyrodiil, that's just an outrage because it was a good article. But here is my idea, use the reference at the bottom to add citations, thus improving the quality, then maybe expand the article. Then on the Locations in Elder Scrolls page just put in brief summary with a link to this page. The same worked for Argonian and Races of Oblivion.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that you reference deleted material, and I'm not an admin and thus can't see it, I can't judge the situation. I'd want to see it covered in the mane TES article to the point that it is decided via split that it should be split into the Locations in Elder Scrolls and then a further split to demonstrate it is notable, thorough coverage, and not merely an inuniverse manual.  Given that I am not confident it would ever reach that stage, I'm keeping my vote at Delete.  Mbisanz (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm not referncing deleted material. I have better examples, basically if we bring our page to a level of quality like argonian we wouldn't be in a tight jam. You are basically keeping your "vote" (it's not a vote) at delete because you don't think anybody will improve it. Bottom line is that is bullshit, you can't want something deleted because you don't think it'll get any better, as in you don't trust editors to do a good job.TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) ok, don't know how that formatting error happened, but this edit should fix it. And if I truly believe that there will never be enough notable or relevant information out there on this topic to make it worthy of an article, then I can maintain that belief and my further belief that it should be deleted. Mbisanz (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, while WP:NOT, I'd refer you to WP:PRACTICAL which permits polling in AfD issues, WP:POLLS which describes how polling is an integral part of determining consensus on an AfD. Again I cannot stress WP:NOT which states that articles that ... includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes are not to be part of the encyclopedia.  Without the inuniverse game guide information, I do not believe there will ever be enough information to form an article, let alone an article that meets notability.  You reference argonian, which in my opinion goes into far too much detail and has NFCC issues with its image.  That being said, the article is sourced to such a great degree that its importance is shown.  I do not believe the information exists to do so with this article.  In almost 2 years of existence, only 1 source has been added.  Even throughout this lenghty AfD, only 1 source exists.  From the content of the article, I feel it could be summarized better within the home article.  Mbisanz (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thing is, the Argonian article is about a relevant to the series as this is. It could be sourced pretty easily. If polling was so important I don't see why Cyrodiil was deleted, the discussion was ongoing and ties Keep v delete. I don't really see this as a game-guide, in fact it doesn't really seem like a game guide at all. The central problem around this article is the In-universe style, a problem so laughably easy to fix, it boggle my mind why this is under afd. Calling this a game guide twenty times doesn't make it one. Unless it is telling you how to play a certain part of the game then it isn't really a guide. The guide rule is made to prevent people from right something like "How to beat Halo 2 on legendary" pages, because that is quite clearly a game guide.TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You dont understand why it was deleted because you refuse to accept WP:FICTION as policy, and not as an opinion that can be argued away, and by now you know that the article cannot have its sourcing issues brushed away, but needs to be addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "This page in a nutshell: Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted."(From WP:FICTION) There, it doesn't appear like we've exhausted every option now does it?TostitosAreGross (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We've been going through this at AfD for 11 days now by my count(twice the norm). There is still only 1 source.  1 source is not substantial coverage. Mbisanz (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're avoiding my point, has every other option been exhausted? Have you tried to find another source?TostitosAreGross (talk) 17:57, 9 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.