Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worlds of Ultima Online

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 merge to Ultima Online for now. There is full consensus that the subject does not have separate notability, but the content of the article are encyclopedic and verifiable, and therefore should be kept. This boils down the debate to the relative merits between keeping the spin-off and merging, and later comments after the article's been trimmed seem to gravitate towards favouring a merge.

This AfD should not preclude Worlds of Ultima Online from becoming a separate article again, should the amount of relevant verifiable encyclopedic content increase to a level at which a spin-off becomes feasible. Der yck C. 18:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds of Ultima Online

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

There are no reliable third-party sources available to WP:verify notability of this game's setting, as distinct from the notability of the Ultima Online game as a whole.

To be more specific... there was a discussion on the talk page where an editor indicated that appropriate sources existed. But none were given, and their appropriateness was refuted. Any third party sources about the game either fail to mention the individual worlds, or barely mention them in a single line (usually with a plot recap). As for sources that talk about the "worlds" (not one world in particular), they use "virtual world" interchangeably with "online game". They talk about the game's mechanics and the game's popularity, occasionally substituting "world" for "game". Nothing that talks specifically about the setting.

Basically, improving this article WP:WONTWORK because there's no sources that can turn this from a level-by-level directory into something that explains this setting's reception and significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultima Online per WP:ATD and WP:NNC. Deletion is unnecessary, as discussions of major plot elements can easily be fit into a topic's main article with appropriate trimming. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you link to WP:NNC? Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. As I mentioned on the talk page, every update has a new world which is given ample coverage in reliable sources for game news. Dream Focus 10:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage about these various worlds, listing what they have in details, and reviewers commenting on them plenty. Article already had references to prove this. I added some more. Dream Focus 10:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: remarkably scant "coverage" in the sources you found. Zero information about reception or significance. Your sources barely mention the worlds by name in a sentence or two. The only information you actually added to the article was about the number of creatures, which is completely off topic. The general notability guideline calls for significant coverage, which is "more than a trivial mention". Shooterwalker (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you talk about a world without mentioning something about it? Mention the building room, the new monsters and creatures, the unique scenery, the new dungeons, etc. A review about a book, game, movie, or anything can only mention its name once, and then talk in detail about it without saying its name repeatedly. It coverage is given to the aspects of something, then obviously that is coverage for it. Dream Focus 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Verifying something exists might be enough to include it in the encyclopedia somewhere. And the main Ultima Online article DOES mention nearly everything already here. But having a source that offers significant coverage (more than a trivial mention, and with information on reception and significance) is what's needed for notability, and a stand-alone article. Otherwise it's just a WP:CONTENTFORK. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Spinoff content forks are listed under "Acceptable types of forking". Diego (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But WP:AVOIDSPLIT says that these forks need to be notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If its notable enough to be in the main article, its notable enough to be split and expanded into a side article. Dream Focus 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultima Online, which is notable. The content is largely good, just it belongs in the main article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it all fit in the main article though? Be rather long. Dream Focus 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:Pokemon test. (Just joking). Seriously, keep per WP:CONTENTFORK. This is a clear spinoff and the Merge votes make it clear that it would work as a section of Ultima Online, but it is already quite long. This should have never been called for deletion given that the sources are clearly verifiable, the WP:WONTWORK given at nomination is for "unsourced and contentious material", "original research", "undue weight" or "libel, nonsense, hoaxes, and vandalism". This is a waste of time. Diego (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly acceptable WP:CONTENTFORK. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: I would support a merge if it would result in a consensus. I still maintain that deletion is appropriate because there aren't sufficient sources to establish notability. We can only find trivial mentions of the worlds in third-party sources, nothing talking about their reception. But I'm not a zealot about this stuff and I'm always willing to compromise. The article is stubbish (4-7k) and could easily be merged with the information on the worlds/expansions at Ultima_online#Expansions. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article. All of that can not be fit over there. Having a large chunk in the main article for this makes no sense, it best to put it to a side article as is proper. Just as the characters are in a separate article than the main series. List of Ultima characters. Same thing is regularly done all over Wikipedia. Dream Focus 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It easily fits. Even if all we did is take out the headings and copy and paste the whole thing to the main article, the main article would still not be large enough to even consider splitting. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It most certainly would not. Look at it carefully now. Would all of that fit over there? You'd end up erasing a large chunk of it for sure. Does anyone else believe you can shove that much text into the main article? Also does anyone believe it should go there instead of just a more convenient side article instead? Dream Focus 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5kb is nothing. We merge stubs like this all the time, especially when they're lacking in sources to meet the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is significant, especially for the items on a list article of this type. Dream Focus 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not using the definition of significant from the general notability guideline, which requires more than a trivial mention. Check the footnotes. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that other notable things have a list article for their worlds, such as List of Firefly planets and moons from the series Firefly. Star Trek has a series of articles for listing all of its planets, List of Star Trek planets. List of Doctor Who planets, List of Transformers planets, etc. etc. This is a valid list article, of a type commonly found on Wikipedia. It should of course be renamed to Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of "trimming" being done to the article now. I really believe people could understand the aspects of this notable game better with more content not less. Felt the same way for the last Ultima article you did this to of course. Britannia (Ultima) was merged [1] to a much shorter version. [2] I suppose all the details about the various worlds could be moved into articles about the specific expansion packs. [3] I still believe the article is notable enough to be kept on its own, but if the opinions of the closing administration is to eliminate the article, then the information should be moved to the appropriate articles for the various expansion packs. Dream Focus 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed anything other than wordiness and original research. Nothing that would affect understanding. If there's a verifiable fact that belongs there, add it back in. Even better would be something with significant coverage to establish notability. (WP:GNG states: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The footnote adds that a "one sentence mention ... is plainly trivial".) Shooterwalker (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultima Online, where it would fit in well. No independent notability apparent. Sandstein 07:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ultima Online; not notable apart from the game, and that article, while longish, could benefit from this information. Not big enough for a spinout at this point. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:53, 5 February 2012 (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.