Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder Scrolls-related articles

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Something Wicked (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 4 June 2006 (→Discussion: format). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


For convenience's sake, I'm listing all AfD candidates related to The Elder Scrolls computer game series here, due to their similarity. Please feel free to amend these page if you feel I have erred. I've tried to redirect all AfD tags on these pages to here. I strongly recommend to the closing admin to projectfy these pages to the Elder Scrolls WikiProject before deletion so they made be copied and included on a gaming wiki — most are well-written, just unencyclopedic. Please feel free to add onto this list as necessary. Tijuana BrassE@ 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed articles for deletion:

Animals

Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia is not meant to list non-notable creatures from video games:

Characters

Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia does not list non-notable, non-encyclopedic fictional characters.

Items, etc.

Nominated on the grounds that Wikipedia is also not meant to list non-notable items (if any) from video games:

Discussion

Please add comments in support of or opposing these nominations below:

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. jaco♫plane 22:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By the way, I realize the mess that such an en-masse AfD creates, so to save someone else the hassle, I'll be glad to take upon myself the chore of removing a bunch of AfD tags, deleting, or whatever else the consensus may be once decided by the closing admin. Tijuana BrassE@ 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per excellent nomination. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Bwithh 05:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Merge, Transwiki, I could see having a page for each category, (eg. Items of Elderscrolls) but not one for each item, transwiki as per nom, and delete as per nom Delete Crazynas 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (with appropriate transwikification) per nom. It would be nice if Tijuana could find a flying buttress to help him handle this load... :) Joe 05:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some of these are quite good articles, some may need to be deleted, but you grouped them in one bunch, so I have to vote keep for all of the bunch. In particular, Almalexia shouldn't be deleted, because it's rather major character, and there are probably others that shouldn't be deleted.  Grue  06:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Delete, and Transwiki (I think that's the correct order) per nom. --Calton | Talk 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Merge where appropriate. So much gamecruft, so little time...I'm grateful that someone did the work to round them all up. In many of these cases, the main article isn't even that long, so I don't understand the need to make a ton of seperate articles. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of them, although there are a few that seem to be quite good. If moving to wikis outside Wikimedia counts as transwiki-ing, then Transwiki the others – Gurch 08:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, this is game guide info not for an encyclopaedia. I don't think there is cause for a 'creatures of TES' page, or for much (if any) of this info to be merged. Perhaps Almalexia could be merged to the Morrowing game page (perhaps) and likewise the Amulet of Kings could perhaps find a home on the Oblivion game page. Other than that, emphatic delete, and a thank you for the amount of work this involved. CastorQuinn 09:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, most of them should probably be deleted or merged eventually but I'm definitely against mass deleting them. The Elderscrolls wikiproject is just getting started why not give its a chance to merge and tidy up the article space before deleting a huge chunk of the content. Dv82matt 10:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most but not all of these articles.
All names for proposed articles are just suggestions. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree with CWC for the most part. There are numerous articles that, taken for themselves, are candidates for deletion and/or mergers. I'd volunteer to take over some of the work that'll have to be done on that front.
However, I argue strongly against outright deleting most of the content contained therein, with the only argument that WP is "not a game guide". WP is supposed to be a contemporary encyclopedia and content about one of the most widely-acclaimed RPG video game series surely is not out of place there. For comparison, just look at the lots of content for all the numberless TV series, comics or anime/manga series. It's part of contemporary "culture" (or sub-culture), for want of a better term, and it deserves its place inside WP.
However, I also agree that there are way to many articles just containing single-paragraph content; many of them are stubs. Therefore, mergering them should be the method of choice here. As I've said, I'm prepared to do some of the work that's necessary. Cheers, Something Wicked 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also want to remind everyone about the widely accepted guideline WP:FICT. In a nutshell it says that minor characters and concepts should be merged into lists, not deleted. So, it seems like CWC's proposal is the most sensible way to close this discussion.  Grue  15:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm also in favour of moving all the smaller and spoiler-free articles to the corresponding lists rather than deleting them outright. However, I strongly advice against Daedric Princes being merged with Daedra, for the latter describes the Daedric race and its subraces, while the former is about the pesonalities of the various Princes. To put it simpler, Daedra belongs to the races category, while Princes - to the characters cat. --Koveras   16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the most recent three comments above. -- Kicking222 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The content is good on a few of them. Deleting some of the more notable (Amulet of Kings, for example) would be bad, but it definetly shouldn't have it's own article. For the less notable stuff, just list them somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyne (talk • contribs)
  • Merge - per above --Jaranda wat's sup 17:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Cheers. --Starionwolf 17:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per WP:FICT. --InShaneee 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Disk space is cheap, human effort isn't; we already have lots of articles about games, even if that is bad, a few more won't change things much (and it isn't bad anyway). Bryce 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC) (Note - merge is fine with me too just don't lose content.[reply]
  • Keep: for a nomination of this size I am simply unable to vote for deletion, nor can I say merge because I am not familiar with these games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AFD will not conclude with a delete because so many articles have been grouped together, surely the nominator knew this. I have only played Morrowind (pretty comprehensively) and have some suggestions below:
  • Keep & Merge - Merge smaller articles, keep bigger ones. No need to delete anything. Havok (T/C/c) 08:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Triage, then Trim, merge and delete, including the continents commented on by CWC. -- Hirudo 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep&Merge - Several of the articles should probably be merged, especially many of the animals and the more minor characters. I know from experience, though, that the Kwama article and some others are a bit big for a list (of course that's a little biased 'cause I did a great deal of the work on Kwama). --Niroht 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (except Almalexia) - Almalexia is a huge part of Morrowind and the series (and I wrote half the article ;)) but most of the others could easily be merged. -Senori 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep&Merge - Almalexia ought to have her own article. Septim dynasty should have its own article with the Septim monarch articles merged and the data regards them listed. Tiber and Uriel VII must have their own articles, being major characters in TES lore. The creatures list should be merged; either into the Daedra article, and Morrowind creatures. D-Katana 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge per others. - CNichols 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I did most of the work on the Emperor or Empress pages and if they are just going to be deleted it would be a shame. Make a list of Minor characters if need be, but if you cut it I highly doubt people will use this site over the TIL. -- Vohod (Please login and sign Havok (T/C/c) 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • I am logged in -- Vohod (I honest to god don't know how to get my name on this stuff)
  • Keep/Merge A lot of these articles should be merged into new or exsisteing articles like the animals and septims into one and the daedric stuff can be combined probably. Don't see a reason to out right delete it all WCX 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gamecruft. However, since that won't succeed, suggest to nominator that he take the long route, using a bunch of suggested merges. Vizjim 13:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge keep bigger ones, merge smaller ones --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge. The details of merging will be further discussed on WP:TES, but generally are likely to stay close to this:
All animals will be merged in Creatures of Morrowind.
Artifacts in question will be merged in The Elder Scrolls Artifacts. Daedric ones stay separated.
Emperors will be merged in Emperors of Tamriel, Septim Dynasty, or similar-named article.
Almalexia is notable enough and requires a separate article.
Daedric Princes will stay, as already encompassing multiple characters.
Other characters will be merged.
This is a proposal for the final decision, based on listed articles themselves, TES source info, and the listed opinions. CP/M 16:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Transwikify. Good articles, but as the nominator said, not really encyclopedic. Would do better on obliviowiki. -- jeffthejiff 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into appropriate lists/articles per CP/M & CWC. Scoo 21:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think that these articles are useful for people like me, who want to learn more about the Elder Scrolls creatures and such, so perhaps the articles could all be merged, But Deleting them is a bad idea, in my opinion.
  • Merge - I agree with CWC about categorizing the content, and I agree with Something Wicked regarding the articles' relevance to the Wikipedia. The articles should not be as complete as a dedicated Elder Scrolls wiki, but summaries and overviews are appropriate for a modern encyclopedia. CrystallinEntity 04:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I did most of the work on the Emperor or Empress pages and if they are just going to be deleted it would be a shame. Make a list of Minor characters if need be, but if you cut it I highly doubt people will use this site over the TIL Vohod 16:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per CP/M. In general, I agree with the nominator's rationale, but this is a bit much at once. Once merged, we can better assess the individual articles' notability. Sandstein 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fabulous, encyclopedic work on this game. Congrats to the editors who took the time to develop this coverage. --JJay 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per JJay, and I don't see why other series like Star Wars, Star Trek or the Matrix can have comprehensive wikipedia coverage and The Elder Scrolls can't. -mrbartjens 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elder_Scrolls-related_articles&oldid=56859300"