Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britannia (Ultima)


 * 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 (series). Courcelles 23:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Britannia (Ultima)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails the general notability guideline due to an absence of third party references, because the article is attributed entirely to instruction manuals. Also fails what Wikipedia is not, because it's all in-universe information with no information on reception (WP:NOT), and is a pretense to list every level in the game (WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL). The right kind of sources don't exist, so it's impossible to turn this from a level-by-level directory to something that explains this setting's reception and significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail in sources such as Atlas of cyberspace and The fantasy role-playing game: a new performing art. This virtual world is both notable and significant, for example, "Britannia was the first game world to host a complex economy, the first to generate currency and goods traded in the real world, and the first to witness a mass protest by players demanding rights for their avatars." (Videogames and education). Warden (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That has more to do with Ultima Online than the main series. Those facts are already covered more appropriately in Ultima Online and Criticism of Ultima Online. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, its mostly the main series. The 8 major towns and some other locations are used in most of the games.  The article mentions places that aren't in Ultima Online.   D r e a m Focus  01:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem. The article mentions places that aren't covered in sources. Moreover, the article's main focus is on WP:GAMEGUIDE content (list of game levels, locations within those levels) that the sources don't describe as notable -- particularly the ones revealed by Warden and the sources I've reviewed. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article's subject must prove it is notable, not the contents within it. It would be an incomplete list if it didn't feature everything.  Eight towns, eight dungeons, various villages, eight shrines of virtue, and other significant locations.   D r e a m Focus  13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A very notable fictional location. With 569 results from Google news for "Britannia" AND "Ultima", its a lot to sort through.  Not sure if a review by Gamers Hell counts as a reliable source or not.  The sources Warden mentioned are sufficient though.   D r e a m Focus  20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ultima (series) - There's some encyclopedic info here, but the topic isn't notable beyond the game itself. --Slashme (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per Slashme. Colonel, as much as I'd like to agree with you, the content more properly belongs to the main article. Moreover, too much of the content is too crufty and not verified (and therefore made notable, DreamFocus) by independent references. That's a matter of editing--but since I don't believe in the notability of the topic, in this case it ought to be a matter of pruning after a merge. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic has to be proven notable, not the contents. The contents are there to make the article complete.  And primary sources are perfectly fine when the information is not in doubt.   D r e a m Focus  01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Wikipedia isn't a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Even if the main topic is notable, there isn't much to actually say about it aside from getting into stuff outside the scope of Wikipedia with a level-by-level, a dungeon-by-dungeon breakdown. You still want the level-by-level dungeon-by-dungeon breakdown. We get it. Let the AFD run its course. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GAMEGUIDE says "A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry". The degree to which we summarise therefore relates to the significance of the game.  My experience of nominating an article about a particular chess opening was that such articles will be invariably be Kept.  We have hundreds of such articles and so we see that, if the game is well-respected and written about, then we will have more than a single article about the details of the game.  This is the case for Britannia/Ultima which is identified by numerous sources as being a significant pioneer in its field.  Its game world or setting is used across a large number of individual games in a variety of formats.  It is therefore appropriate to have an article which covers this common setting to save repetition across the multiple articles about the multiple Ultima games and spinoffs.  See chessboard for the equivalent article for the game chess.  Warden (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Summarize and merge: per slashme. Some encyclopedic information. But degenerates into a verbal map of where to find shrines and dungeons. See WP:GAMEGUIDE. Dzlife (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2011 (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.