Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Marsh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 discounting that conspiracy nonsense and the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:FICTION is policy. Secret account 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Marsh

Black Marsh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent 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) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well written and referenced. Borderline for notability but it's obvious that a lot of work went into this article. I don't see how Wikipedia would be improved by its deletion. —dv82matt 13:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be an assertion of notability, until it has at least one secondary reference, how can it be called borderline? Judgesurreal777 05:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We've done this dance. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsweyr. —dv82matt 06:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasoning I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsweyr. Pagrashtak 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm starting to see the conspiracy here, Judgesurreal has been attempting to wipe out EVERY Elder Scrolls article. I was surprised at this one though, the Black Marsh page is pretty good. In fact it was once a good article, now it's being deleted? You and RMHED have been teaming up for this one and I must say I'm getting a bit irked. I checked the AFD list and you are literally responsible for almost every fiction AFD, on tons of other material not related to TES. I don't know how I can take you seriously when you have cranked out hundreds of AFD tags with the same robotic response. I thought I might have been the only one but a comment on your talk page from the user:Serendipodous summed it up pretty well when suggesting that you go out of your way to delete every single fiction related article for minor issues. Give it a rest.TostitosAreGross (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If you think about, there is a conspiracy to enforce Wikipedia policies, THE SHOCK!!! And have you noticed NOT ONE ELDER SCROLLS ARTICLE HAS BEEN KEPT SO FAR? That must be a conspiracy by the admins to DESTROY ELDER SCROLLS....spooky. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The conspiracy I'm noticing is the familiar faces on every TES article deletion page. I think you're in for a harsh reality when it comes to deleting every one of these articles. Would not be surprised if this article isn't going anywhere, and some of the larger ones that you've attacked, the ones with sources etc. I really don't think they'll be deleted. The ones that are gone probably deserved to be deleted but I haven't seen one iota of evidence that you are going to fill the vacuum of articles with anything meaningful. You could make a larger compilation article, but all you did was try to delete those too. How about you join WP:TES and do something other then deleting articles, like improving them. Seriously they aren't all non-notable.TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure at some point someone will make a Universe of the Elder Scrolls series, and if they are lucky, Characters of the Elder Scrolls series, but for now, it looks like there are barely any references for any of this stuff. If you are so set on saving them, your path is clear, show us how notable they are, and I will gladly remove this AFD. I DONT CARE what the articles are about on Wikipedia, as long as they are good, or have the potential to be good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:26, 8 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.