433:, no this IS the place to suggest that this article be deleted because of it's type since it's type is not covered under what Knowledge (XXG) is. I understand that someone took a lot of time with the article, but that does not establish notability. I understand that this is a major element in a fictional game world, but that does not establish notability. Outside sources, not fan sites. DDG I would agree that the sources are appropriate for the subject but the subject is therefore inappropriate for wikipedia.
451:(XXG) under such scrutiny. I know what will be said next, get a reference of notability, I'll look for it, you guys should look for it, but really this article should not be deleted, deletion is the last option not the first. There is a level of reason that must be used, Knowledge (XXG) has no firm set of rules for what do in these situations.
215:
particularily good ones. I don't think a strong case has been made for deletion. How is the deletion supposed to improve
Knowledge (XXG)? Is the deletion of this article crucial enough to risk alienating obviously talented resourceful users who are likely to contribute to other articles if they are not needlessly antagonized? —
450:
If you are suggesting that the sources are unreliable, I can tell you it isn't true. The information given is accurate to the letter. As far as TES pages this one is detailed and shows where it gets its information. That alone makes it acceptably notable, you don't see any other articles on
Knowledge
194:
Recheck the article. It has loads of refrences. It is however borderline due to not being specifically featured in a major game. I'd prefer to see it kept simply because I don't see a compelling reason to delete it so there is no reason to pointlessly antagonize the individual(s) who obviously put a
117:
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 Knowledge (XXG) is not a gameguide,
270:
You were the one that just brought up how talented and active the users are that would be turned away or antagonized, and I said that there isn't any proof that they are very active contributors, but we are getting severely off topic. Fact is, this article has asserted no notability on any scale or
244:
It is simply a fact! I have not seen them actively contributing at those locations, which are nexus's for quality articles. If they have, I am in error, but I don't think I am. And it is irrelevant what "mindset" I have, I follow wikipedia policies, including notability and verifiability, and that
280:
Eh, well it's good to know the antecedent for your comment but it doesn't address the concern raised there at all. If you want to show my concern is unfounded you could ensure the primary contributer(s) to this article have been notified of this AFD. If they were to then post here saying that they
224:
Of course it isn't binary, but on a scale of 1 to a 100, 100 being the most notable, we are firmly at 0 on this one as there is not yet on reference to back this article up. Except for 2 or 3 users, most of the people who would keep these article fail to understand wikipedia policies or contribute
214:
Huh? I wasn't refering to your rationale but to the comment of yours which directly preceded mine. Am I to assume that you think that notability is binary rather than a continuum then? The references to fan sites are an indication (or "hint" as you put it) of notability. They are just not
305:
Not knowing the game enough to tell personally, I ask the nom. to explain more exactly why the content of this particular article is duplicative--not a statement about articles in general, this particular one. We are not making a policy here, we are applying it to individual articles.
360:. Although this article has a large number of citations, they are all or nearly all to fan sites and not reliable secondary sources. There is no out-of-universe perspective, and nothing to indicate real-world notability. Therefore, the article does not meet the requirements of
324:
It is the burden of those who would have the article kept to show that the articleis notable in its own right. As far as duplication, its comes from the plot sections of the Elder Scroll games, and all the rest of the information beyond what is mentioned there is cruft.
204:
Please recheck my rationale, as it says that all those things that look like in line citations and references are all to fan sites, and that they assert no real world notability, and making this a plot recitation masquerading as a good article.
234:
Your scale is poorly constructed. Placing
Elsweyr at zero one a scale of 1 to 100 indicates a binary mindset to me. Though I understand you may be frustrated, I don't think deriding others adds anything to your argument.
254:
I really don't see what relevance a user's lack of contributions to the Good and
Featured article processes could possibly have in relation to this AFD. If it is somehow relevant you'll have to spell it out for me.
339:
on the basis of the vagueness of the answer to my question. We are supposed to be discussing this article, and the nom has given no specific comments about it . The argument is then that articles of this
344:
should be deleted, and this is the wrong forum for that. Unless there is some indication that the content of the actual article is being addressed, i dont think this a valid nomination.~
174:
Well written and referenced. Borderline for notability but it's obvious that a lot of work went into this article. I don't see how
Knowledge (XXG) would be improved by its deletion. —
110:
17:
403:
361:
478:
36:
83:
78:
456:
87:
281:
are not opposed to deletion or are in favor of deletion I would be quite likely to modify my vote based on that. —
123:
477:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
70:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
386:
these sites are appropriate sources for the subject. We are supposed to use common sense in this regard.
452:
413:
371:
326:
272:
246:
226:
206:
186:
119:
48:, even after discounting some of the keeps that doesn't confirm to policy, relist in a few months.
460:
442:
419:
397:
377:
329:
317:
285:
275:
259:
249:
239:
229:
219:
209:
199:
189:
178:
166:
149:
127:
52:
282:
256:
236:
216:
196:
175:
438:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
137:
162:
408:
366:
145:
402:
No, notability must be established through secondary sources, not fan sites. Please read
393:
351:
313:
434:
74:
104:
185:
How it is borderline notability? Where are the references that would hint at it?
158:
49:
141:
388:
346:
308:
66:
58:
471:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
118:
and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted.
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
271:measurement, and will be deleted unless it does.
225:regularly to creating Featured or Good articles.
481:). No further edits should be made to this page.
157:- a large amount of content on a notable game. -
8:
195:lot of hard work into this article. —
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
404:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction)
362:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction)
140:. All references are in universe.
24:
1:
220:23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
210:21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
200:18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
190:17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
179:13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
167:03:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
150:00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
128:23:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
461:14:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
443:08:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
420:18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
398:00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
378:16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
330:21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
318:02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
286:02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
276:22:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
260:22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
250:18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
240:18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
230:17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
53:23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
498:
474:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
364:and should be deleted.
245:is what matters.
489:
476:
453:TostitosAreGross
416:
411:
374:
369:
108:
90:
34:
497:
496:
492:
491:
490:
488:
487:
486:
485:
479:deletion review
472:
414:
409:
372:
367:
327:Judgesurreal777
273:Judgesurreal777
247:Judgesurreal777
227:Judgesurreal777
207:Judgesurreal777
187:Judgesurreal777
120:Judgesurreal777
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
495:
493:
484:
483:
466:
464:
463:
445:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
381:
380:
355:
333:
332:
321:
320:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
182:
181:
169:
152:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
494:
482:
480:
475:
469:
468:
467:
462:
458:
454:
449:
446:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
428:
421:
418:
417:
412:
405:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
390:
385:
384:
383:
382:
379:
376:
375:
370:
363:
359:
356:
353:
349:
348:
343:
338:
335:
334:
331:
328:
323:
322:
319:
315:
311:
310:
304:
301:
300:
287:
284:
279:
278:
277:
274:
269:
261:
258:
253:
252:
251:
248:
243:
242:
241:
238:
233:
232:
231:
228:
223:
222:
221:
218:
213:
212:
211:
208:
203:
202:
201:
198:
193:
192:
191:
188:
184:
183:
180:
177:
173:
170:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
132:
131:
130:
129:
125:
121:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
473:
470:
465:
447:
430:
407:
387:
365:
357:
345:
341:
336:
307:
302:
171:
154:
133:
116:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
136:NN fails
283:dv82matt
257:dv82matt
237:dv82matt
217:dv82matt
197:dv82matt
176:dv82matt
111:View log
435:Epthorn
303:comment
138:WP:FICT
84:protect
79:history
67:Elsweyr
59:Elsweyr
431:Delete
358:Delete
159:Senori
134:Delete
88:delete
50:Secret
415:shtak
410:Pagra
373:shtak
368:Pagra
142:RMHED
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
457:talk
448:Keep
439:talk
394:talk
352:talk
342:type
337:Keep
314:talk
172:Keep
163:talk
155:Keep
146:talk
124:talk
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
389:DGG
347:DGG
309:DGG
109:– (
459:)
441:)
406:.
396:)
316:)
165:)
148:)
126:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
455:(
437:(
392:(
354:)
350:(
312:(
255:—
235:—
161:(
144:(
122:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.