Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locations in 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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in Cyrodiil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Article should be integrated into the Cyrodiil article. Peter1968 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 16:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep-"trasncluding" all the reasons for keep given by the various people in the exactly similar articles above. The editors seem to have gotten tired trying to address this long series of nominations, Its much harder to reply intelligently than to use the same identical copy-and-paste argument for deletion. In brief, a notable element of a notable game. Wouldnt apply to minor details within the region--this is the way to do the article--the specialized wiki gets the ones on the true details. DGG (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for the thousandth time, notability is determined by referencing, not by assertions of notability. There are either references, which make articles, or no references and no articles due to lack of verification. I'm sorry if we can't just take you and others at your word, but there needs to be real referencing to withdraw these nominations. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we", Judgesurreal777? You speak for nobody but yourself. Everybody here should speak for themselves. All you're doing is subverting your aims with egotism. Peter1968 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I am wrong? You will take his word that something is notable with no proof? Ok, then I will speak for wikipedians who understand policy, is that better? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete... since it's NOT a notable topic in real life. Notability doesn't just roll down the mountain like that. It may be notable in the game, and the game may be notable, but the two do not equal 'real life' notability. It belongs in the Elder Scrolls wiki. Epthorn (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until real sources are found. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.