Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyrim (2nd nomination)

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, has no reliable independent sources at all. Fram (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skyrim

Skyrim (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) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Was also nominated two years ago and has seen no improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree, no notabliity. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: When this article was nominated two years ago, the only votes were in favor of keeping it. Other articles in the Elder Scrolls series have withstood AfD with shakier grounds and much less content. -Senori (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't justify keeping it, especially since it has established no notability and has no references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I do not know the game--I am just judging the article; there seems to be sufficient information beyond the small excerpt in Major_regions_of_The_Elder_Scrolls to justify an article in its own right. It isnt a game guide, because it doesnt seem enough of the kind of detail needed to play the game. If we don't waste time throwing good things out, we can write new articles on arguably more important things. DGG (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And I promise we wont, because there is nothing "good" about the article in an encyclopedic way, as there is no evidence of notability. After all, Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

nothing in fiction has literal real-world notability. Rather, it's notable because of a notable role in notable fiction, and because the fiction has the real world notability. that's the meaning of the guideline that contributes towards building the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. Zeus is fictional, yet has real-world notability. Yes, he appears in notable fiction, but the fictional concept itself also has real-world notability independent of that and has made an impact in real life. Your argument is that notability is inherited, which is not true. The Pearl is notable fiction, and Kino is a notable role within that notable fiction, but this not not automatically grant Kino real-world notability. Pagrashtak 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per DGG. I am less concerned about WP:RS if the article passes WP:FICT as notable, i.e., is a notable person/place/thing/concept in X fiction or game. I know that's not a strong argument, but it's a standard that independent sources are less important for fictional places and persons that for real places and BLP's. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That isn't true, it is crucial for fictional articles to be sourced independently. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:19, 6 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.