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. The article should be rewritten to remove the 'in universe' style, and I'm one of the many who has never heard of or played Elder Scrolls, but good arguments are made to keep the article. I don't see a consensus either way at this time. KrakatoaKatie 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamriel[edit]

Tamriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable 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) 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issue of the nomination, which is its lack of notability, and thus verification, through reliable sourcing. You can't argue for keeping it if you can't show it has notability. Judgesurreal777 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please show how its notable through providing reliable out of universe referencing establishing notability, we can't just take your word for it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All articles, including subpages, must follow and fulfill wikipedia guidelines, including WP:FICTION and verification. Wikipedia does not forbid subpages, in fact the Development and re-rating of Elder Scrolls Oblivion are now Featured articles, but that is because they more than satisfy the other wikipedia criteria, as this and all sub articles must. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines say all topics, not articles, and WP:V concerns are reasons for cleanup, not deletion (this is far from inherently unverifiable). You're evading the point; this page should not be judged seperately from it's parent topic. Enforcing a standard like that effectively does ban subpages and is directly at odds with WP:SIZE. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article." (WP:N, lede paragraph). It only applies at the article level. DGG (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is ambiguous - it can be taken to mean either way, but I'm not referring to that anyway. It's entirely appropriate to write about the setting and characters of a piece of fiction, and WP:FICT has provision for splits when these sections become too long. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia Guideline are that, guidelines, Judge you're following the rules religiously, not to mention the same two sets of rules. This could turn into an argument consisting of people pulling out sections of Wikipedia rules that follow their cause, but that would be stupid. TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot possibly use those criteria to argue an article cannot be judged with those criteria. The article fails them, and needs to be improved or deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're still evading the point. This page should not be judged as seperate from its parents and siblings. Simply reasserting your position doesn't make any difference. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would read the nominating statement, there is a very big issue for this article to still pass the mustard on. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By Your standard Orc (Middle-earth) isn't notable. It doesn't have that many references, and those references are mostly book sources of Tolkien's letters. That isn't an outside source, it's straight from Tolkien's writing material. If that is acceptable then so is this.TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Orcs are notable, cf this article: Ryan J.S. 1966. German mythology applied. The extension of the literary folk memory. Folklore 77:45-59.
They are real sources, can you explain what makes them fake? Imperial Libarary is a collection of in-game texts, not speculative in any way therefore isn't typical fan site garbage.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this discussion isn't a vote, how about you outline why you think this appears to be strictly a game guide and then we'll discuss it.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then, except for the first sentence, the entire article is written in-universe, which I don't agree with as an encyclopedic article. This therefore is a description of the game as defined by it plot, characters, etc. Refering to policy WP:NOT#GUIDE (not a manual to things, WP:NOT#PLOT (not a summary of fictional writings), therefore, I continue with my belief that it should be deleted. Mbisanz (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must add, that isn't a deletion worthy flaw. Articles that are written in-universe aren't supposed to be deleted, they're supposed to be fixed. Even I agree it should be less in-universe but let's be productive and fix it.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, within the context of the video-gaming community, I do not believe this particular item in this particular game rises to the level of notability, regardless of how it is written. Now if there was say a particularly violent weapon in this game that caused a senator to hold hearings on it OR if this world was layed out using some new technique in video game technology, then maybe, and even then it would be a stretch for me. Mbisanz (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the setting for a very poular video game series starting in 1994. Settings are about as notable as they get. As for this game getting senators pissed off, it has so if you want some links I'll show you.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acutally, the setting of the game would be covered here [1] to the extent that is necessary. That page is niether overly long or congested to cover a reasonable section about the layout of the game. Yes, senators may be ticked about the GAME, but not this FEATURE of the game. Mbisanz (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody thinks that link suffices, even the nominator, a new article devoted to the world of the elder scrolls would be necessary. Let me tell you now though, detail isn't frowned upon and it isn't necessarily fancruft. For example Argonian discusses the finer points of argonian culture, it isn't close to being as notable as this article and yet remains because it is a well formed article. If we could turn every one of these article into a high quality article using that page as template we would be getting somewhere. It would be for the betterment of Wikipedia, even though some would still complain about notability it wouldn't matter and never does when it comes to a good article.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that would depend on sourcing if there is such a thing. And Argonian at least has some notability to claim for its own, even though it is small. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that are not, as a million fan sites do not always mean some kind of encyclopedic notability. And flexibility is usually given to articles that have demonstrated they have some notable referencing somewhere, not to ones that have demonstrated none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the rules are not flexible. That isn't true, Wikipedia policy is as flexible and forgiving as anything I've seen. The rules are meant to give a sort of template of what Wikipedia wants its articles to all eventually look like, it isn't some strict set of policy as WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY will tell you.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case why should the article be given "flexiblity" when there has been not one reference found to establish notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't give it flexibility, the rule is flexible, as in there is no one firm set of policy for what should be done in this case. Notability rules are disputed and it's only one rule, you can't just shut down an article because it isn't notable enough for you. I guarantee you that notability could be established through a reference found on the net. I don't see why you think there would be no notable references on the web when it is the setting of a 13 year series. Just tell me what kind notability link you're looking for and I'll find it.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline for fiction has only been "disputed" by you and User:DGG as of a day or so ago, and such efforts to dilute Wikipedias encyclopedic standards will not succeed. Now please stop pretending WP:FICTION doesn't exist and either find references or stop arguing about it, it is pointless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no it's actually the first thing you see when you open WP:FICTION. TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2007 (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.
More