Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The elder scrolls V shadow realm


 * 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. Note: the three accounts blocked for sock-puppetry and the related IP were not taken into consideration. (Wikipedian999, Marvelmenace, Topliner, 217.43.136.206) Icestorm815  •  Talk  04:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The elder scrolls V shadow realm

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:CRYSTAL about says it all. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC) *Delete Sources?-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  23:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Why?
 * DeleteSources have arrived. But I still support delete.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who cares what you support you write about music. I'm Sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.136.206 (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Edit the text to include what is already known of the game and what is established speculation. This article will appear again eventually, so why not keep it and allow it to be altered if properly cited and referenced?Tamrelic Historian (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you took the time to study the cited sources, you would see that the only factual thing that is actually known of the subject is the following developer quote: "...and potentially there's a new Elder Scrolls title in 2010...". Even the name of the supposed title seems to be a result of an entirely unconfirmed rumor. If you wish to be consistent with your own advice, you really need to change your position to "delete". — Rankiri (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The notorious development hell of video games may keep this one on the horizon for many years. The release in 2010 is speculative:. Fences and windows (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:CRYSTAL refers to unverifiable speculation. This article has a reference and the guidelines state "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. An article about Elder Scrolls VI saying "Elder Scrolls VI will be the version of Elder Scrolls after version V but there is no evidence it will be produced because they didn't even confirm version V yet." would be a proper WP:CRYSTAL violation. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Discusssions as such should only be covered if they have become notable in their own right as a discussion. Wikipedia is neither a news source nor a place where speculations about future games should be posted. After all : who would keep up with deleting all the articles on games that were rumored to be planned and never ended up being released ? Passportguy (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article can be altered in the future if Bethesda change the sub-title or anything to do with the Elder Scrolls V. Elder Scrolls V has been confirmed, but if the game doesn't release, then you should delete the article. Lets keep the article so we can put infomation we find into the article for people who want to know about the game, just make sure you add a source to confirm the infomation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben1239randy (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No - it is exactly the other way around. Nothing belongs on here unless it is certain that it will be released. The only exception would be (in rare cases) that the speculation on the release has reached such a level that the speculation as such is notable. Passportguy (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you show where this requirement for certainty can be found in Wikipedia policy? I agree there is no room for unverifiable speculation, but the WP:CRYSTAL policy certainly does not prohobit "articles about anticipated events" stating that merely that they "must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" which is clearly the case here. Indeed the policy specifcally mentions games, and rather than forbidding such articles states that "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims". Presumably this is why we have Template:Future_game. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The key here is "unverifiable speculation". Almost all speculation is unverifiable unless it is based on specifc facts. I.e. I can speculate a game is going to come out if a certain release date if announced or if a company has announced firm intentions to publish it. Or I can speculate that it will come out at a later date, because I know from a different source that production has been delayed due to a strike at the factory. However pure speculation that a product might be released some time in the future without anything to base it on, is unverifiable speculation, exactly because it has not have any factual basis. Verifing "unverifiable speculation" does not mean finding source that proves that there is speculation (again unless the speculation itself is suficiently notable to be the subject of an article).
 * For example : An article on Windows 7 is permissible, as it has been firmly announced by Microsoft. An article on Windows 8 would not be, even if sourced by internet forums speculating that the version post-windows 7 might be called "Windows 8". Passportguy (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the anaology I used above with Elder Scrolls VI. For Elder Scrolls V the publisher has stated that it is hoping to release it some time in 2010. That's no different from Microsoft saying they intend to release Windows 7 "in time for the holiday season of 2009". The publisher has stated it's intention to publish, this is not unfounded speculation --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about you look at the references or look it up on the internet. 19:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben1239randy (talk • contribs)
 * What you forget to take into account is that Windows 7 is as a product infinity more notable than The elder scrolls V. Even if Windows 8 never gets released (which as such is extremly unlikely) it would be notable as a planned product. On the other hand the chances that "The elder scrolls V" is never released for whatever reason are much more higher and this game in turn would not be notable if it indeed never gets released. Therefore the specificity of the announcement of planned release has to be that much higher.
 * On an aside I might also add that "holiday season [i.e. December] 2009" is much more specific than "in about 2010" Passportguy (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think a careful reading of WP:CRYSTAL clearly shows that it does not apply to this game, but I'll shut-up now as I think that's enough from one person.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Bethesda is so gonna make TES V, just change the articles name that's the only problem with it. Plus there is going to be a article sooner or later so why not start the article now, the article hasn't got serious info about the game, only what year it's scheduled to release, what platforms it is going to be released on and maybe where it's going to be set and maybe what the sub-title is going to be. Stop making a big fuss about it, not like the info is permanent, if the years wrong edit it. If the platforms are wrong or there are new ones (unlikely) edit it. The Sub-title is wrong EDIT IT!!!. I repeat there is gonnna be an article about TES V in the future so use this one. Every article starts out with minor or hardley any info and they didn't get deleted. Ben1239randy (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as sheer speculation. The only relevant quote ("...and potentially there's a new Elder Scrolls title in 2010...") is obviously too vague and speculative to be used as a reliable source. — Rankiri (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing that really matters is verifiability, not truth so as long as it has reliable sources that have something to say about it, fine. But as of now, the only thing the sources has to say is it might be another game in 2010. Which is really saying nothing. So I'll have to go for delete. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 09:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You do know for a fact that some games that were cancelled are on wikipedia and it would go in the List of cancelled video games if (very unlikely) got cancelled. 15:43 May 25 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename As a huge Elder Scrolls fan, I tend to follow the news surrounding Bethesda. Right now, there is no definitive proof that Bethesda is working on a new Elder Scrolls title. There is NO EVIDENCE that the game would be called 'Shadow Realm', zero, nada, zip. There is however some evidence that another Elder Scrolls title (most evidence points to the title 'Skyrim') is in the works, though most of it is based on inference and original research: UESP1,UESP2, and UESP3.--Ratwar (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well elder scrolls Fan if you only rely on Bethesda infomation about TESV then why would you look it up on wikipedia, i mean i might not get what you're saying but wikipedia doesn't have always true info and (this is for everyone) bethesda doesn't exactly write it on wikipedia, wikipedians find info and write it on wikipedia and give you sources like what they did for the elder scrolls V shadow realm.
 * Delete. The onus of this article's asserted notability is based on one word, "potentially", which shows this to be a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to The Elder Scrolls, where info on a potential new game should be contained (which it is, in two sentences) until such point that it makes sense to split it out into its own article. Nifboy (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If this article is said to be deleted then shouldn't The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim be deleted the title is wrong, like Bethesda are really going to name the SUB-TITLE SKYRIM and it contains info that has no references at all so you don't even know if it's true, the elder scrolls V shadow realm article is more true than The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim article, also it said that dwarves being a playable race in TES V but Bethesda said they are just keeping TES V with the usual nine races. Besides there is only one dwarve in existence anyway, i think. So The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim should also be deleted if The Elder Scrolls V shadow Realm is to be Deleted. Sorry for going on.  21:34 may 27 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben1239randy (talk • contribs)
 * Comment I'm not really going to argue that the ES:Skyrim article shouldn't be deleted, but if you bothered to read my first vote, you'd know that there is some evidence pointing to Skyrim with a trademark application being filed by Bethesda... And there is a precedent for them being named after provinces (like Morrowind).--Ratwar (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well i get your point but if i was going to make a fifth title after a award winning fanastic game, i would name TES V something fantastic. Anyway i don't even like the name shadow realm it reminds me of (gulp) Yu-Gi-oh, so i hope they change it. May 28 2009 (UTC) Ben1239randy (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It will be back if it's deleted, Bethesda is definitely following up Oblivion (it would be naive to assume not), we just don't know the title or release date.Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not without reliable sources proving so, it isn't. We don't base articles on speculative subjects, and that's currently exactly what this is. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to here. No relevant information and no accurate confirmation.VG Editor (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why redirect a title which doesn't even exist? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, you really think Bethesda aren't going to make the Fifth installment, the only thing you should be complaining about is the title of the article which was an accident i didn't mean to name the article The elder scrolls V shadow realm, i typed it in on wikipedia and saw all the other articles that wikipedians made that got deleted then i decided to make a page and see if it's any good, but as i typed in as the elder scrolls V shadow realm it made an article with that name but i really wanted it as The Elder Scrolls V. If someone knows how to change it too The Elder Scrolls V then please do so. If no one changes it, then i guess i'll have another go at changing it.Ben1239randy (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is, this article has no info apart from one comment of a "potential" sequel. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't keep articles on the basis that information might turn up for them one day. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but all articles start out with hardley any info please read the comments before entering and yes we do wait for info i mean, info naturally turns up one day and a person wants everyone to know so they go on wikipedia and submit it and put a reference for where he got it from, then the article gets bigger and bigger. The same with other articles, they don't start out with loads of info they start out with a few lines, there is lots of articles on wikipedia that have one line, mostly you find them by looking up not very famous actors. Ben1239randy (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't, though, hence WP:CRYSTAL. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why am i being blamed for sockpuppets Ben1239randy (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (until E3 '09) If no comfirmation is made regarding a new TES game than do what you will, but don't redirect I hate it when I click on a game sequel page & am directed to a small itty bitty section on the original game page. possible E3 showcases —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.141.210 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)  — 96.3.141.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. note that user 96.3.141.210 (normally 96.3.174.68) f-ed up his computer & is using his moms, snooty little wikipedia.

Arbitrary section break 1

 * can someone please rename it--Ben1239randy (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. All sources are speculative and the name hasn't even been verified by those sources.   Them  From  Space  14:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry here is obvious. For example, the three named accounts below me were created at 11:27, 11:32, and 11:38 today and their only contributions have been here. To all people who were recruited for this debate, please argue in accordance to our policies and guidelines and don't fall for common arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  Them  From  Space  16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep What Ben1239randy said --217.43.136.206 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — 217.43.136.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note that, by this edit, it's fairly obvious that the above IP is actually Ben1239randy, expressly trying to make it look like more people are arguing his/her case than there really are. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * KeepThis so worth keeping all you need to do is edit it in the future and maybe change the title.--Wikipedian999 (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Wikipedian999 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I love the elder scrolls and i think this one could be the start of the new elder scrolls V article.--Marvelmenace (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Marvelmenace (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I don't get why they what it deleted You can edit it if you want no one is holding you back. I like this article to be the TESV article but i don't like the codename (Shadow realm).Topliner (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — Topliner (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Nuff said. Eusebeus (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note – sockpuppetry suspected. See Sockpuppet investigations/Ben1239randy. MuZemike 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pure WP:CRYSTALballery Mayalld (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 62 Misfit (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC): If hardly anything is known about the game, then what's the point of an article? The sources cited suck, and can give readers no useful or new information. I say down with it.
 * 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.