UESPWiki:Deletion Review/The Elder Scrolls V

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Deletion Review discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

The Elder Scrolls V

Despite the noncontroversial idea of deleting this page, it has become controversial. And due to this, I don't believe an administrator would comfortably be able to delete this; therefore, I am putting it up for deletion review. The main problem with this article is that it takes up a namespace. There never has been and there (most likely) never will be a namespace labeled The Elder Scrolls #. It isn't in General, where it should be. But that leads us to out next problem. All the information that could possibly fit onto this page is already on General:The Future of TES Games, with a correct namespace and everything. Perhaps the name could throw some people off, but it is listed on General:Main Page and was a news article a while ago. And lastly, the line Ideas on the game's setting have ranged from Summerset Isle to when Ayleids ruled is outlandish and unsourced. --Elliot ^talk 16:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Keep, but edit to fit wiki standards and require some degree of citation for any claims the article shouldn't become random wild speculation, perhaps using sections to discuss major speculation. I'm not sure if bthes has released any information at all about TESV (apart from that they are making it) so I'm not sure what information we can salvage, but the article at it's current state needs a lot of cleanup and work. RandomTime 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Keep in mind, the "wanted" end product you speak of is already in existence. –Elliot ^talk 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Excelent, Redirect to General:The Future of TES Games RandomTime 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: We don't know anything about the next game. It might not even be TESV - it could quite easily be a spin-off along the lines of Redguard or Battlespire. Until there is some definite information on the next game, everything is speculation and so an article called "The Future of TES Games" is the one to keep. Even keeping this as a redirect is speculation, and this wiki does not deal in speculation. –rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 18:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: It serves no useful purpose as-is, is temporal and is, as mention, covered elsewhere. It may be beneficial to put a prominent link on the main page to the "Future" page, however? JKing 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: We already have a page covering the future of TES games - and I can't think of a single good reason why we should have two. Krusty 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)