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. No need to keep this open any longer, I would be happy to userfy this to anyone who believes they could use the information more appropriately. J04n(talk page) 11:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 March 29.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Organizations of The Elder Scrolls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not establish significant notability from reliable sources. While the world of Elder Scrolls may be notable, this article has demonstrated very little as an independent topic. Although I did once say the topic had proved its notability, in retrospect it never demonstrated nearly enough to stand on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like the definition of gamecruft to me. This information is best suited to an Elder Scrolls wiki. All that Wikipedia needs to note is that the players can join different groups, which I'm sure is already noted on the games' pages.--Atlantima (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a unique or truly notable part of the games, not to mention the fact that TES' various factions don't really fit into a nice categories we could write an article on. Marechal Ney (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "List of characters" articles are usually notable, but not merely races. As said above, its something more appropriate for the game's specific Wiki. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You win the "I didn't read the article even more than everyone else" award. This is about organisations, not races, and is not a mere list. It opens with several paragraphs of sourced criticism. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely within fancruft. Most of the sources point towards aspects of the game not directly relating to the topic. Mkdw ^talk 22:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: I closed this discussion as delete, but another editor would like to comment. J04n(talk page) 14:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a huge fan of the series, and Morrowind even changed my life, but as the above posters note this article has no real-world basis. It's all in-universe and of little importance outside of the Elder Scrolls franchise. It's a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Them From Space 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is discussion of design and of gameplay elements. These are by definition not in-universe. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Excessive trivia regarding a topic that is already covered in appropriate depth elsewhere. Reyk _YO! 10:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The various articles on the individual games. I see you're getting sarcastic and badgery with all the delete !voters, so I will not respond any further here. Reyk _YO! 05:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm being sarcastic with Sergecross73, but (s)he deserves it. I've spent more time replying to the user than they did reading the article. I was hoping to have a reasonable conversation with everyone else, but if you're not willing, then so be it. J Milburn (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love these games and I've put a couple hundred hours of my life into them collectively. But this is fansite material that's simply trivial and out of scope in a general interest encyclopedia. Also, extremely unlikely these have received the required substantial coverage in reliable sources. While we're at it, I'm not seeing why a unanimous debate was reopened. Can literally any editor demand an admin reopen any discussion no matter how clear the consensus, and waste 7 more days of community time? That's just absurd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not demand that the discussion was reopened. J04n reopened it after I opened a deletion review. As you can see from the current references used in the article, it has received at least some coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm also a huge fan of the games, but this article quite simply belongs on an Elder Scrolls fan wiki, not on Wikipedia, for the litany of reasons outlined above. Should be userified on request, however. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Commanet - I made a backup copy of this article on Wikialpha. Anyone who wishes continue to edit it if it gets deleted and edit it there. Mathewignash (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guild-joining element of the games is an extremely significant aspect; this is not merely a list of organisations in the various games, which some users seem to assume, but also has sourced discussion of the design of the guilds and the role they play within the game. I'm sure there would also potentially be sources for discussion of the critical response and impact/influence. I am not going to search for them now, as it's pretty clear where this discussion is going, which is a shame. I actually nominated this for deletion myself, but withdrew my nomination after seeing the arguments in the first AfD, and, afterwards, did what I could to improve the article. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I feel your argument does not address is that Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE to talk about how important a game feature is to a player-base. Moreover, the fact that it is important does not necessarily make it a notable subject. Importance =/= notability. Lastly, if the article were more heavily about impact and influence beyond run-of-the-mill gamer coverage it would be seriously reconsidered, but it's close; i.e. 2 of the 7 sections are not analytical and merely descriptive of the game feature, and inside those 2 sections that do discuss the aspect, most of it is still game description. Mkdw ^talk 20:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you're saying. I think the best argument I could provide (if I have the time and inclination) is to work on a stronger article on the same topic, which demonstrates the real-world significance of the subject. Obviously, if I am unable to do so, that would be the deletion vindicated. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd be interested in userfying the relavent sections to do just that? Mkdw ^talk 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't know what to think about this and I'm even scared to comment, but here it goes. What needs to be asked is if the topic meets general notability guidelines. If no, then the article should go. If yes, then fall back on WP:GAMEGUIDE and cut the article down to the basic facts. My talk page is now open for your attacks! --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the decision to relist this discussion as a bit perplexing. Especially since the consensus prior to the first relist was very strong, and following the relist, it still largely favoured delete in that the 9 editors who argued for delete cited guideline and policy based arguments, while the 1 keep argument has not addressed WP:GAMEGUIDE or that the article makes no assertion of notability, and largely agreed, the article does not discussion the important aspects of the feature outside guide. Mkdw^talk 05:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the consensus is pretty clear, and I agree that the relist was probably an odd decision, but characterising the keepers as citing policies and me as failing to do so is laughably partisan and borderline delusional. I refer you, for instance, to Sergecross's ridiculous comment. You could have managed to make this comment without implying that I don't know what I'm talking about... J Milburn (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think you made some good points. I don't really think I implied the connotation that you didn't know what you were talking about, but rather, you brought up new arguments that were valid but did not directly address the issues most people thought the article should be deleted. I'm also inclined with Mark and you, J Milburn, that the article could be re-created and userfy the noted contents you suggested were potentially worth keeping. I did point this out earlier and directed the question at you in the form of a reply above. I sincerely apologize if it sounded negative, I only meant to strengthen my argument in that your keep comment did regard the delete camp's argument as also very strong, in that it was not an adamant oppose to our arguments. Mkdw ^talk 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a little snappy... J Milburn (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Factions and guilds in the Elder Scrolls games have gotten some news press at IGN, mmprorg.com, PC Gamer, and G4. None of these could be considered unambiguously reliable sources, but the topic may become notable in time. In my opinion, WP:GAMEGUIDE is an argument for improving the article, not deletion. I agree that consensus for deletion was reached and will not contest that, but there should be no prejudice to re-creation if more sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While I think there are sufficient sources for there to be an article under GNG but I'm not sure it completely fulfills WP:VGSCOPE. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2013 (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.