Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrodiil

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 Keep arguments are a mostly taken from arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. The arguments to delete are rooted in policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrodiil

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

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) 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a large amount of content on a notable game. -Senori (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But wikipedia isn't a game guide...Epthorn (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this article isn't a "gameguide", it's a gazetteer for a location within a very popular game franchise. I think it should be kept and the Locations in Cyrodiil article be merged into this one. Peter1968 (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

...what? Wikipedia also isn't a travel pamphlet for fictional locations.Epthorn (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• What is encyclopedic about a "gazetteer for a location within a very popular game"? Wikipedia ought not to be a Elder Scrolls wiki mirror site. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Note I have restored this comment after it was deleted by Peter1968. Pete.Hurd 16:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted as I still feel that these things (AfDs) should be a pure vote on whether an article remains on Wikipedia, not a place to argue and bicker about each person's opinion on said article. That's why I deleted your comment. Am I trying to keep things simple here? Yep, guilty as charged. Peter1968 22:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no non in-game content, no sources other than the game and a fansite. Here is a much more appropriate place for contributing to a Free Content article on Elder Scrolls locations. --Stormie (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep more notable than some of the other provinces of Tamriel as it is the setting of the fourth game in the series. —dv82matt 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But still not notable, this article needs some references to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, since Pete.Hurd believes that AFD's are a discussion arena, and not a place to vote on something, let me weigh in. It's a video game - I don't know where the reference is now that Wikipedia has turned into a policy-ridden mess, but there was/is an underlying principle that video games were self-evident insofar as sourcing material went. If you wanted sources, you'd buy the damned thing and play it for yourself to see them. Video games aren't usually as the Bible or The Simpsons about which many books and concordances have been written. Video games are almost always their own source. Yes, there are exceptions (Ultimas, Doom, Quake, etc). As for the other discussion that WP duplicates a lot of what UESP has - that's an extremely weak argument - that one thing is already found in one place so it's needless to repeat it elsewhere. WP itself is copied, mirrored and adapted (freely and legally) by many places. Who are *you* to decide that the public should have lesser chances of finding genuine information about features in a genuine product. It's an extremely paternalistic and self-defeating argument. The Elder Scrolls games are not minor products with an obscure fan-base. Au contraire - they've sold millions and have an extremely active player base. I'll declare now that the articles are as notable as they come when it comes to computer products and more notable than many. Again, sources - especially the ones that WP often requires - are going to be difficult to obtain. It's the nature of the beast. Peter1968 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure but by that criteria many unquestionably notable articles would be deleted. That the references are not considered ideal is not a strong argument in favor of deletion. You should probably have tagged the article as having poor refrences or brought the problem up on the talk page rather than nominating it for deletion. —dv82matt 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is notability, of which the article has none. It has no real references, and thus cannot be Verified, which is a criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 22:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is an important locale, albeit fake. Why not delete all movie pages since you could say "this isn't IMDB"?—Zeppelin462 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Great argument, delete all articles.... by the way, references are the basis for having an article on Wikipedia; if you have it, you are notable. By definition, notable things have references. And also the argument isn't that the references are "poor", there are none! Judgesurreal777 17:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Great argument indeed. The Zeppelin user states "delete all movies" - you stated "delete all articles" in response. Excellent strawman argument there - putting things into people's mouths and all that. If you want to get your point across, objectivity is king, not logical fallacies. Peter1968 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Recheck the article. It does have some refrences, though I agree they are not ideal. —dv82matt 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please point them out, you are referring to real world ones right? Judgesurreal777 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Do you mean to say that you think the references themselves are fictional? They are of course all "real world" references. —dv82matt 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Peter doesn't seem to get the point of my argument whatsoever. The strawman argument works well here, as this could be attributed to all movie pages and whatnot. I am not putting words in to people's mouths, but rather giving them something similar to compare, there in hopefully changing someone's mind.Zeppelin462 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, read carefully what I wrote...again. I was taking *your* side. Who did I reply to? You or Judgesurreal? There you go then...Peter1968 (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This article does not have any connection with our universe, meaning the world is not significantly affected by cyrodiil. Just replace this page with a soft redirect to the Elder Scrolls Wiki, and we're done. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask then - should we remove everything that isn't connected with our universe from Wikipedia? That means everything make believe and imaginary, fictional and so forth. That covers everything from Hogan's Heroes to Debbie does Dallas essentially. Where do we draw the line? Peter1968 07:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, not everything fictional should be deleted, but articles like this one have no relativity in our universe. It needs to relate to something in our universe, like have references from a 3rd party source that isn't just a fan site. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The history of our world is not significantly affected by the goings-on in any fiction. That does not mean that fictional settings or characters are not notable. Like all culture, it affects the way we think and play--games have always been a notable part of civilization. DGG (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It is exceedingly clear you have no understanding of WP:FICTION, and it is critical if you are going to continue participating in these discussions for you to understand it. The policy says that for something to be encyclopedic, it has to have some degree of notability outside of just the game. This includes developer interviews, design sketches, notability in the popular culture such as a reference in a SNL sketch or a parody by someone. If an article, such as this one, has none of those things, it lacks notability, and shouldn't have its own article. Judgesurreal777 22:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Who's on a crusade then? Peter1968 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No one! We just want policy followed. If that bothers people, by all means, take it up with the policy pages, I'm sure they would be willing to debate notability all day long. Judgesurreal777 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This conversation is frustrating as it is inevitably fractured across several of these contested AFDs. I think a more nuanced view of notability on the part of the nominator would be helpful to understand where others are coming from on this. Rigidly applying an idea of notability based on refrences would result in deleting many unquestionably notable articles and also creating many unnotable articles simply because references meeting WP:RS have been turned up. On another note the idea expressed in the rationale that the information in this article is duplicative seems manifestly bogus. Duplicative with what? —dv82matt 14:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So we should be nuanced, and ignore policies of wikipedia? We should be lenient, when those who want to keep this article demonstrate not one reference, but instead of finding any attack the integrity of those who follow policy? I don't think so. Judgesurreal777 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Our guidelines and even our policies are meant to be interpreted flexibly, according to particular cases and common sense. Our core values are fixed--material must be verified. That is not arguable. But how it is to be verified is not a core value--its a practice of ours, and can be interpreted as necessary. WP is not a straight-jacket. In this case, the material is documented adequately by the primary sources. That wouldnt be enough for all articles, but it is for this. Even the old guideline about primary sources -- and it was never more than a guideline--made an exception for the description of fiction--and it is now no longer even the undisputed consensus. I think it will end up as either an essay, or a rejected guideline when the current discussions are over. But by any reasonable standard of how to discuss this type of subject, this is acceptable. DGG (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777, I don't mean to attack your integrity at all and if I've come across that way then I apologise. I realize that it takes a bit of gumption to nominate articles for AFD and a thick skin to deal with the flak. I don't think we should ignore Wikipedia policies but I also don't think we should be a slave to them. Improving Wikipedia should be the main focus and reasonable people can disagree about how best to do that. —dv82matt 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Also @Judgesurreal777. Did you read my diatribe above re: the self-sourcing that is inherent in video games? Like I wrote - I'm not sure if the guideline (yes, policies here are guidelines, not absolute rules) still exists, but there did exist a principle where video games were their own source. As for your crusade (yes, I will name it that from available evidence) to have a bunch of articles deleted because they violate what you obviously perceive to be inviolate rules, let me point you in the direction of this lovely policy. This Cyrodiil article is well written and illustrates its subject matter excellently and I believe WP would be a worse off place without it. Peter1968 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - You will all be happy to learn that two articles that were AFD'd have demonstrated notability and I have withdrawn...as you see, this process is also at times constructive, just like Featured Article Review many times sees an article transformed into a fantastic one. I know it stirs controversy to have these articles deleted, but if you look at how amazing some of our Featured and Good articles are, you will see why these policies are in place, and how these article have no hope of attaining that level of development. True, many can be brought back in some form, such as these 80+ Elder Scrolls article will probably come back as to articles; "Universe of the Elder Scrolls series", and if they are lucky, "Characters of the Elder Scrolls series", and Wikipedia will be much better for it. But there is no need to keep these articles, which fail our policies and do not add anything to the encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't add anything to the encyclopedia - in your opinion and that of a few others. Yes, there is a distinction. Peter1968 (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And in the "Opinion" of Wikipedia, as it doesn't meet the criterias for notability or verification. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Has some references, an information base to prove it's right. Also WAY more notable then any other in-universe article as it is useful and relevant to millions of consumers.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't just say its notable, you have to provide out of universe references to SHOW it is notable, otherwise what you said is just your opinion, and we need more. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of how easy it would be to establish your "notability" to cyrodiil and Morrowind, because they are settings and actually get mentioned in news articles. [1] This is a link that mentions cyrodiil exists and it isn't a fan site. TostitosAreGross (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we know it exists in the game, that's not the issue. The issue is we need development type information I have already outlined, we don't just need an assertion that it exists at all, we need to know its important. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Are You kidding me, I couldn't find a Wikipedia page out there that would fall under your guidelines, what do you want New York Times Front Page CYROD117 15 1mper7AnT!!1! Just give me a clear cut example, a link to something that establishes notability to something (let's try other then master chief).TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete... just like all these other articles, it is a very nice gameguide and belongs on another wiki, but not wikiPEDIA as it fails to (even try and) establish real world notability as set forth in consensus guidelines. Epthorn (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable; cruft. SharkD (talk) 18:40, 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.