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. But I will make the content available to anyone who knows where they specifically want to move this to, in compliance with the GFDL of course. W.marsh 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of The Elder Scrolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

While initially prodded for reasons of OR (due to the initial concern of this discussion), I'm willing to admit that wasn't the most well thought-out rationale, but it isn't the whole picture, either. This is a sub-article whose subject is discussed almost exclusively in a single secondary source. Nifboy 15:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The use of mostly one source for the information does make it seem like the author is trying push just one point of view, plus there could well be copyvio issues if the article is just a single source rehashed for wikipedia. The Kinslayer 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/move This article has been discussed at WikiProject The Elder Scrolls and it has been determined that this particular article does have problems, and that it is best deleted or moved to a TES-specific wiki. The other suggestion is a major revamp and (not or) changing the name in order to eliminate OR and single source issues. That one's a great deal of work though. --Niroht | Smoke signals 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm a member of WP:TES. All of this article is OR. The sources that it depends on are OR themselves, only on a fansite. There is no way to salvage it that I can see. --PresN 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is getting complicated. It appears that UESP, the largest TES Wiki and the only one I'm familiar with, cannot accept the page due to copyright/copyleft concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geuiwogbil (talk • contribs) 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I added the sources with the intent that whomever eventually came to work on the page would use them. This content of this page has not been changed since then. This page was written without the aid of those sources, and is thus completely OR. The only way this could become a valid article would be if it were to be started from scratch. I'm not willing to work on it, so it's best that it just be deleted for now. Relevant, cited information could probably still be kept on the Morrowind (province) page, nothing substantial can be salvaged here. Geuiwogbil 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Projectify/Userfy I'd support good cleanup and reworking of the article on user or wikiproject namespaces for the purposes of reinclusion in the main article namespace or for use in external wikis. Geuiwogbil 11:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Projectify/Userfy – There are currently no Elder Scrolls wikis that use the GFDL license. However, there may be a fan site, such as TIL, that would highly appreciate this article and would gladly accept the GFDL license that goes with it. I request that we userfy this article to User:Aristeo/Architecture of The Elder Scrolls so I can look for someone who can accept this article. Once I find a site that will use this article, I will propose the Wikipedia article for speedy deletion. A lot of contributors have put a lot of effort into this article, and I would hate for their efforts to be wasted. --Aristeo 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Projectify - The article is not fitting on its own, but not harmful; and it contains information, which is likely to be useful for other articles, here or elsewhere, and is worth rewriting for sites not using GDFL license. I suggest to move it to Wikiproject:The Elder Scrolls subpage, as we already did before with some articles, which later were cleaned and merged into longer and more comprehensive articles on broader subjects. BTW, on subject of sourcing - the sources are on fansite, but from the original game (assumedly having permission, as the website used to be linked from the official site when there was links section - Bethesda is quite permissive in terms of copyright); so this is actually linked to books from the primary source, not just speculation. There are other reasons, of course, but UESP was somewhat interested in the article already. And there likely are GDFL TES wikis; furthermore, preservation of the article in the project subspace will serve preserving copyrights. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The only Elder Scrolls wiki under the GFDL is an empty project on Wikia, unfortunately. Anyway, you're proposing that we split the article up and distribute it to the rest of Wikipedia, and I'm suggesting that we package up the article and send it to another site. I think you're idea is pretty good, but if it doesn't work for any reason then we can fall back on my plan if everyone is up to it. --Aristeo 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically, no matter how diverse it is, it's not noteworthy. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I change my vote to merge. I feel it would be sufficient to move this info into the Morrowind (province) article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:38, 1 February 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.