Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morrowind (province)

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. Secret ^account 23:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morrowind (province)

Morrowind (province) (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) 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete this 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) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a large amount of content on a notable game. -Senori (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as likely copyvio but allow recreation. If someone fixes the copyvio concerns before the close of this AFD I'll change my vote back to keep. Keep More notable than some of the other provinces of Tamriel as it is the setting of the third game in the series. —dv82matt 13:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - For violating WP:COPY - Source Info Gtstricky 17:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me. Please be sure to verify that Wikipedia's article was copied from there rather than the other way around. —dv82matt 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the link and the page states it was created in 2004.Gtstricky 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks, it does appear likely to be a copyvio. Changing my vote. —dv82matt 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The Black Marsh page was a total copyvio of what I wrote, so I'm not sure the Morrowind page is any better. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Commment - How it is notable? That's what we are trying to assert after all, but to do so we need reliable sources, and so far we still have zero. Judgesurreal777 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is notable as the setting for the third game in the series. I'm sure we could find a reliable source in order to properly document that. If you are looking for a source that establishes notability without mentioning it in relation to the game then I think you have set the bar for inclusion far too high. At any rate it may be moot if this article is a CopyVio. —dv82matt 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But that is the bar for notability; the article needs to show that it has some relevance outside of the game, such as if there is a developer interview documenting how he created the game, some early design sketches, reaction from game reviewers describing how great the region is visually, stuff like that. If it has none of that, it shouldn't have its own article. Judgesurreal777 22:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The primary notability for something like this will always be in relation to the game. That some subjects are also notable in secondary ways such as some of the ones you mention does not negate that the primary notability is nessessarily in relation to the game. Saying that it must meet the bar for notability outside of the context of the game is like saying that Mohamed Sissoko must meet the bar for notability outside the context of soccer. —dv82matt 14:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the sources as argued in more detail above are the appropriate ones for the subject. The RS guideline is meant to be used with some common sense. DGG (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

....And that means articles don't have to have any references or meet any notability guidelines? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Nice summary on the houses, which makes the houses of morrowind article a little less necessary. It's notable too. That is, it is the setting of a game played by millions, a setting with an incredible amount of detail.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

....Which has what to do with its lack of notability established through out of universe sourcing? If you are going to participate in these discussions, please remember that they are here because of specific reasons listed by the nominator, and saying "how popular it is" without anything backing it up doesn't accomplish anything. Judgesurreal777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a certain level of common sense used when it comes to notability. I don't need to read some obscure article on a gaming website to establish that it is notable, I know it is and I know it is relevant because it is a SETTING, as in where the game takes place. Although now that I think about it, it wouldn't be too hard to find notability for both Morrowind and especially Cyrodil.TostitosAreGross (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete until sources are found. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:18, 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.