Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organizations of The Elder Scrolls

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.

Organizations of The Elder Scrolls

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Miremare 18:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a properly sourced article with greatly reduced content as proposed by Judgesurreal777 on the TES project page. Why delete all this content first and then start new collection articles? I'm working on one in my userspace. mensch • t 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as preferable to individual articles on each.DGG (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, WP:FICT, etc. Fin ©™ 17:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Starting to piss me off a bit, because this is the best alternative to having individual articles. This is your solution Judgesurreal if you want to be the hero out of this you've should just turn this article into a GA or FA, I know you could, and don't give me any shit about how you can't because there aren't any notability references floating around the net, you know that isn't true. It would be about as time consuming as starting 100 AFD debates. Oh and for the record this is the best encyclopedic TES info on the net, unfortunately contrary to what others think, UESP isn't a storyline wiki, it's a game wiki.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am MORE than willing to keep ANY, and in fact, ALL OF THESE ARTICLES, if you can prove to me, and everyone else in these discussions, that they pass wikipedia policy of notability. Just find me a few, and I will happily withdraw this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my belief that this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. It appears that 5 of the groups listed in the template have been deleted. How then can these more minor orgs be notable? (rhetorical question). Mbisanz (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should keep: the contents are worthy of an inclusion in an article, and whether to do it as a separate article or part of the main one is an editing decision. DGG (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without any notability, it will probably warrant two-three sentences, not this huge article..Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is actually quite relevant to the subject matter. The entire game series is about organizations, alliances etc. So I think that it would be best if this article was kept. The fact that organizations are so important to the series suggests that this article is necessary, especially since most the organizations don't have the clout to stand on their own and need a compilation article like this to hold them up.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without notability, nothing is "holding the article up"; if its so important to the series as you claim, please produce some references to verify notability, and remember that the organizations of Elder Scrolls are already covered in the plot section of each Elder Scroll game article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine what're looking for in terms of notability links?TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at any one of the dozens of AFD's I have participated in in the last two weeks, many in which I have already EXPLAINED THE POLICY TO YOU, and I will not do it again. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no need to shout, everyone is paying attention, we just don't agree with your interpretation--and if you think you need to shout to convince us, it might even have the opposite effect :) DGG (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're dodging my question, just give me a concise example of what it is you want and I'll try to help.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is WP:FICTION, learn it, love it, live it :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, gone over it and still I'm just asking what kind of notability link you are looking for since you are so picky.TostitosAreGross (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have my own private standards, the policy on fictions will suffice. Perhaps something from one of the creators/writers of the story or developers of the game on how they made it, what these organizations were based on, stuff like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can dig up. TostitosAreGross (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview that stresses this importance of guilds in the game. [1] It is one of several community interviews I just remembered had some good stuff in them.TostitosAreGross (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You found a little something, good. We need like two more so we have "multiple" sources so we can safely withdraw...look in there and see if there is anything else, cause that could be a good source you have, good job. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another page from developers that lays out the fundamentals of the game. It would be useful in showing the importance of the factions and setting (Cyrodiil, which unfortunately is gone already). [2] among other things. 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TostitosAreGross (talk • contribs)

That's not really a good one as its just gameplay information....look in those developer interviews, see if there is anything there. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview that is pretty good. It mentions that some inspirations for some Guild missions are from Agatha Christie and the developer talks about his favorite organizations [3].TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, you have done it! You have established notability in at minimum a limited sense, and we should add this information to the article and close this. Great, great job!! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Notability has been established for this article, and that was the contention of its nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- comment, delete Disagree. This still isn't notable outside of the series. Only Elder Scrolls players would know of this. Hence, it should be a part of the main Elder Scrolls article. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that matters, it has been withdrawn by nominator.TostitosAreGross (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some basic demonstration of notability has been established, it isn't perfect but it can be worked on. If the article is still straining after a lengthy period of time we can look at it again. The removal of unnecessary location articles means there's less to focus on and increases the chances of this article getting more attention. I'll have a good look for sources myself in the future, but I'm a little snowed under ATM. Someone another (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on Judgesurreal, this is starting to become quite ridiculus. Get off your high horse and let us have our articles for our research. You don't own wikipedia and you sure as hell shouldn't own what we can and can't access. Wikipedia happens to be one of the best (or was one of the best sources until you destroyed it) for elder scrolls information. Just do a search on Google, more then fifty percent of the time a Wikipedia article will be at the top of the search engine! After all, isn't this supposes to be a place for centralized information so we don't have to go on the five year journey to learn a thing or two about house Dres, find out if Blackwood stole a hist from Black Marsh, etc...? This article isn't hurting anybody, and more then likely, it's helping a few of us. Please read this that I posted at the Black Marsh deletion discusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Black_Marsh

Good day

The Grey Wizard (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, great job paying attention, the article was already withdrawn, so it will be kept...oh and all that stuff you just said? Pure ignorance of Wikipedia policies, read these; WP:RS, WP:FICTION, WP:WAF. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:12, 11 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.