Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daggerfall Unity

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 redirect to The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall#Community support. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Daggerfall Unity

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be mostly LLM-generated, and is mostly sourced to unreliable social media sources. The cleanup this would require to bring up to standard, I would argue, is more than it is worth. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
No LLM was used to generate any part of it. I agree the sourcing needs work, but these LLM accusations were made in retaliation to an ANI inicdent. To delete the entire article that provides good information for people isn't good for anyone. If a part is inaccurate, then point it out, but I actually wrote it using the best RSes I could find. MightyLebowski (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Daggerfall as a WP:ATD on the basis of overlap per WP:MERGEREASON. Over 20 of the article's 29 sources are not reliable sources - there is an overreliance on primary sources such as the site and GitHub repos, and user-generated sources such as wikis, user video content, social media and forum posts. The over-sectioning and generalisations could reflect WP:LLM use or not; either way it is patently unnecessary detail and not supported by reliable sourcing and most of it would need to be cut anyway. What sourcing remains may contribute to some notability: I do see the article cites some good coverage from a few decent sites. But as a feature-identical reimplementation of a game merely in a modern engine, one that only that looks a bit nicer and plays a bit smoother, I see a hard uphill journey to ask why any of this couldn't be summarised in a paragraph or two in the page of Daggerfall, no? On the ANI stuff, let's keep it chill, the above policies and thoughts easily apply to the article on its own merits and I'm not going to look at whatever's going on there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Before I get sent to permanent wikiprison, I'll say that you should try to keep it in its own article if possible. The infobox and whatnot really fit it because it's its own thing. Obviously it needs some improvement, but I get what you're saying regardless. MightyLebowski (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
If appropriate, infoboxes are routinely a thing in subsections for subordinate releases. I see it a lot for DLC. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NEXIST. Article seems to pass GNG, so the fact that it may have unreliable sources or not adhere to typical Wiki style is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. AfD is not cleanup. Also oppose merging the article on the basis that there isn't overlap; the mod was not created by the original developers and there's plenty of information specifically on it that can fill an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
On overlap: the game is virtually the same with some engine and QOL improvements. Is an article necessary trying to explain what these improvements are? The reliable sources cited do not deal with the development history of the game in any length that would warrant its own article, but maybe a search for other sources would yield that. This isn't like something like Tamriel Rebuilt where the history of development and the content of what is added are so different from the original game. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Keep, but desperately needs gutting or even TNT. There are a handful of reliable sources in there, like PC Gamer, that make it at least marginally notable; the LLM cruft and poor sources, however, need to go. The Github and Nexus Mods pages for DF Unity would be better off as external links, too.~~ Merging would be an acceptable alternative to me if necessary, as DFU's main purpose is letting the modern user play Daggerfall, after all. Crystalespeon (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Change to Merge to the main Daggerfall article. Upon doing a search for news articles, the only real points of interest that game news articles grab at for DFU are that: 1) it has been finished, 2) it was released on GOG but is no longer available that way, 3) you can play Daggerfall on modern machines using it. I honestly don't think it needs much more than a short section in the original game's article. Crystalespeon (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete I was originally considering merging, however the Daggerfall article already has a few paragraphs about this Unity port, complete with several citations, a decent description and a much better overview of the technical details. I don't see much that could reasonably be added to that section from this article.

This is a port of an existing game and there just isn't enough here to warrant an individual article, especially after it's been cleaned up. The sourcing overall is unreliable, with the creator taking liberties with what the spice actually said vs. what was written in the article - the whole thing is unreliable as a result.

There's too much of an overlap per WP:MERGEREASON and not enough to make this port notable in its own right beyond what appears to be pretty standard trivia for most computer games & ports (as mentioned above it was finished, it's no longer on sale somewhere, it's a modern remaster).

I hesitate to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I'd also question a separate article for the Assassin's Creed: Black Flag remaster, unless something major happened to make it notable in its own right. Blue-Sonnet 01:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge selectively to The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall#Community support, where it is already mentioned, mostly per WP:MERGECON, the fan port only makes sense in the context of the original game. There are details that can be ported, mainly more on the history and development process and reception. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment the creator of this article has been blocked and the article seems to be AI generated. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 22:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with Blue Sonnet's rationale. There is nothing here worth merging or keeping because a) the port has not demonstrated independent notability from the original game, b) the Daggerfall article already covers this topic adequately in the community support section, and c) there is so much LLM cruft and unreliable sourcing here that we would need to invoke WP:TNT and start from scratch. MidnightMayhem (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall#Community support – There are a few sources that could be productively imported into the existing section, but that can happen in due time. For now, redirect as an WP:ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall#Community support per Suriname0. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

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.