Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultima Dragons


 * 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. Notability is, as pointed out below, demonstrated by specific coverage in reliable third-party sources, not by our own opinion on how big "big" is. For much of this AfD that was completely ignored by the 'keep' side. Later sources started to be mentioned, but only two third-party sources relating to the same assertion of notability have so far been referenced enough for anyone to actually be able to find and read them. If they were significant enough I could default to keep on the basis of insufficent discussion - however, they consist of an interview and a MobyGames listing showing that a special edition of Ultima IX was named after them, which is a point of minor trivia that might merit a mention in Ultima IX: Ascension, and in terms of WP:WEB qualifies the interview and game listing as passing mentions (they total exactly four sentences in an 11-page interview, one of which is "Yeah", plus the one line in the MobyGames listing). They are therefore not sufficient.

It has been asserted that they received other coverage in some other magazines, but no mention of when or where. That's too vague. If the actual articles can actually be tracked down, so that they can be referenced with issue number and article title, then deletion review can consider them (once they are able to actually read them). At this point in time this is still an article on a website with no adequately verified assertion of notability, and policy requires its deletion. Articles are not innocent until proven guilty - the burden is on the editors of the article.

Incidentally, in my experience your neighbour's Amiga can be crashed by coughing too loudly. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultima Dragons
Fan club for the Ultima series of games, fails WP:V by not having multiple independent, reliable, third-party sources available for it. Recury 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quoting my earlier deprodding rationale: "Any active club, run since 1994, that has a membership roster huge enough to crash your neighbour's Amiga, is probably notable". As for verifiability, we can trust the site itself as a primary source. I'm pretty sure I've seen mentions of the group in mags, just can't remember where right now, it's been years. The bottom line is, anyone who's interested of Ultima series of games is bound to run to these people sooner or later. (disclusure: I happen to be a member, just not an active participant in the inner workings of the group or anything.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V says, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." "Mentions" would not be sufficient, as they are considered trivial coverage. Recury 14:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Here's a small question that came in mind, though - exactly what in the article is questionable enough to warrant verification from third-party sources? Please be specific. (My favorite part from RS: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence".) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's all true enough, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it in the first place. Recury 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And exactly why shouldn't we have an article in the first place? I believe you just shot your arguments: We have here a group that quite likely satisfies notability criteria, and there's not much to complain about verifiability either, if you can't find anything that really needs strict verifying from third parties. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The newsgroup exists, that is a given, and participation on it continues. You can also find mention of it in the Ultima Online for Dummies book as I recall.  Possibly some others.  If there's anything in the article that's disputed though, delete it.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that it exists, only that having an article on it agrees with Wikipedia policy. I should also emphasize that I don't contest any of the information that is in the article itself. Recury 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, given that there's no contentious information in the article, self-published sources are fine with me, and like I said, I think it is in Ultima Online for Dummies. Possibly in some of the other for Dummies books, I don't know for sure.  Might even have been included in some Origin products, as a link to their fanclub, but I'm not sure.  Oh, and I just found this:   which mentions that there was a tribute to the club in the form of the Dragon Edition of Ultima IX. And Origin links to them  which seems to make them an official club as well.     FrozenPurpleCube 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, mentions are not good enough. Recury 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not enough for what? Your question is about verifiability, but you aren't disputing anything that can't be observed on the Web by anyone.  Heck, you might even find them mentioned in the Special Thanks section of some of the games or their manuals.  Do you really need more? FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article goes into detail about the club's origins on Prodigy. Where on the World Wide Web might this be observed?  The article tells us what the customs of the club are.  Where on the World Wide Web have these customs been documented and fact checked? Uncle G 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On the Web, where you can read the UDIC's account of it. Possible on google groups if they've got the postings announcing the formation of the news group.  See also WP:RS about Self-published sources when providing an account of themselves. If you want to provide any other account, I suggest you find your sources.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "On the Web" is not an answer to my questions. Please answer my questions. Uncle G 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh, is someting about an autobiographical entry not clear to you or what? Do you have a sincere dispute with the account given by the club about their existence or what?  Seriously, if somebody wanted to verify this in the way you wanted, they could, since this is a factual account but that would be way outside the needs of Wikipedia.   FrozenPurpleCube 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are now actively avoiding answering the questions. Please point to where on the World Wide Web the club's origins on Prodigy may be observed and where on the World Wide Web the customs of the club have been documented and fact checked.  Lack of an answer, having been asked three times in a row, will strongly indicate that your assertion of verifiability is a false one. Uncle G 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:V. TJ Spyke 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Has notability, don't think WP:V applies in this case. (signing) SirFozzie 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:V doesn't just apply when you feel like it. It's a goddamn policy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the various Wikipolicies quite wisely acknowledge they aren't an iron-clad straitjacket. Besides, the group has been around since at least 1996 according to the IAW.  Do you think they've been lying for 10 years?  I think given the lack of any claims that any information in the article is wrong, given the lack of any comments on the Internet that they're wrong, that well, the principle that a person's account of themself can be reliable about themself.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A direct quote from WP:V: "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are negotiable only at the foundation level, not at the level of the English-language Wikipedia." (Emphasis mine) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And if you read further down on the page: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: (blah, blah, all things relevant and not in dispute here).  The fact is, there are things that need robust verifiability, and things that don't.  Given that anybody can check their website, I'm not seeing any problem with verifiability.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to use the site in that manner, you'll need to preface every piece of information extracted from the site with a phrase like "The Ultima Dragons website claims that...", in order to bring it in line with that kind of usage. And of course, there's still the bit of WP:RS that says, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Maybe it would be different if there were reliable outside sources, but there aren't. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 09:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note the word largely. That means there are exceptions, doesn't it?.  This, I contend is a clear exception.  Why?  Because the article is autobiographical. Since this information has been presented for at least 10 years according to the Internet Wayback machine, I doubt they're making it up.  And seriously, you can check the internet for Ultima Dragons sites.  There are plenty of people who claim membership.  Do you think they'd exist if the club didn't? FrozenPurpleCube 19:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Doesn't assert notability. Arbusto 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability was not listed a reason for the nomination, but I assert notability as it is a large club of several thousand members of a clearly notable family of games, and it has long-standing existence.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not notable. It's a damn fan club for a video game. I am questioning the notability of it, I'm just doing it by saying it isn't important enough for anyone not associated with it to have written about it. Recury 13:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found some posts on Usenet that indicate that Richard Garriott in several interviews mentioned that the Dragon Edition of Ultima IX was named after him. Pity they didn't say what months, it might make searching easier(still, I will try, so cut me some slack on looking for them, if you please).  But still, I think it indicates that notability does exist.  After all, if the creator of a well-known game series mentions them as the reason to make a collector's edition of a notable game, that is something substantial.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the grand scheme of things, it really isn't. It's cool and all that they seem to recognize you guys, but it's still just a fan club for a video game. Try to look at this from the point of view of someone who doesn't play video games. I still stand by the argument that if you haven't been written about, (not just mentioned, but discussed) then you aren't notable, which is one that Wikipedia policy agrees with. Recury 20:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You guys? First, I am not, nor have I ever been an Ultima Dragon(I have, however, played the Ultima games).  Second, looking at it from the point of view of someone who doesn't play video games(let alone hasn't played the Ultima series), I realize that that person wouldn't know about the importance of the Ultima series, let alone the fans of it, so IF for some reason they were looking for it, explaining what it was would be quite important.  I certainly would't say such a person has any standing to question their notability.  They just wouldn't know enough about the subject.  Especially one like this one which doesn't always attract that much journalistic or academic interest.  (Though Richard Garriot, who does attract that interest, has apparently spoken about them, at least according to what I've found on the usenet site.  Now I just need to find the articles.  It may take some time, since I'm searching the Wayback machine to see if I can find the old articles.).

FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did find mention of them in an interview with Lord British through the Wayback machine . It's possible there are others, but I don't want to dig around on old gaming sites if there's either no need, or no point.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment However, on examining the article, and the UDIC website, I felt it was a copyvio so I have purged several sections of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs).
 * Ehhh... I wrote the "Membership" and "Customs" sections myself. I believe I didn't copy any passages directly from the web site. Granted, it was some spectacularly garbageful stuff from years back... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it felt a little close to it for me, and a little rewriting won't hurt, especially since some of the article was more conversational and friendly than I'd recommend. FrozenPurpleCube 14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And a random comment, putting it here just because I feel the need to ramble a bit: I don't believe verifiability is reason for deletion if the notability can otherwise be established from the sources. In AfD, notability is much more of a factor. We're supposed to be debating whether or not this topic needs to exist as a stand-alone article. Lack of verifiability is a cleanup issue: You can remove unverifiable material from the article, and merge the rest if the article isn't big enough. Lack of verifiability is only an issue when there's absolutely no material that would speak for the notability, for example, saying that a book is a bestseller without telling the book's ISBN or even publisher, and then finding less than 10 google hits for the author, all unrelated. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In addiotion to that, there's a difference between verifiability of a theory, and verifiability of a fact. There's little, if any theory in the article (nothing like say, Ultima Online's success killed Ultima X), and mostly non-contested facts of an autobiographical nature.  Even if the facts aren't verified robustly, that they could be (because they are facts) is a reason to not delete.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Descriptions of a club's origins, and of the customs of a club, are not facts. They are syntheses and analyses of raw data.  They are required to be verifiable, as is everything in Wikipedia. Uncle G 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A club's origins are facts as they would be events that exist. They can be observed, remembered, and written about.  Same with customs.  And they have been reported on the club's website.  Do you want some scholarly report on it, with peer-review and extensive studies?  That seems excessive to me when you haven't even articulated how anything in the article itself is actually in error.  FrozenPurpleCube 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Though I admit bias. However, WP:V is NOT a valid grounds for deletion. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Failure to be verifiable is one of the primary reasons for deletion, per our Deletion policy. Please read it.  Asserting that the verifiability policy does not apply to content will get you exactly nowhere as far as arguing for keeping an article is concerned (or indeed as far as most discussions here in Wikipedia are concerned).  If you want to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water, please cite the sources that FrozenPurpleCube is actively avoiding citing, above, to demonstrate that the article is verifiable. Uncle G 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Failure to be verifiable is a reason to delete an article - if you can't find any mentions at all from any source whatsoever that seems remarkable. However, in this case, there's absolutely no reason not to believe the primary source, because even casual digging reveals that the group has been in existence for a long time and their own arguments seem to hold water. This is where this debate turns controversial: The primary source holds water, unlike in many other random sites that tend to get slapped "not verifiable" etc; this is where your friendly hey-we-just-opened-a-website-yesterday tactical nuke of two-penny-website smiting turns into the evil cruftbane of stacked charges, a tool to get articles deleted because of a technicality rather than what plain ordinary common sense says. Also, as Wizardry Dragon says below, we're facing a small dilemma here. People who toss around "not verifiable" usually follow it up with "two google hits". In this particular case, "not verifiable" is followed up with "23,100 google hits", which in this case isn't followed up with "...but most are irrelevant". this is a little bit of a contradiction and a reason for doubt. There's reasonable doubt that "not verifiable" is bunk, no matter how you put it. "Not verifiable" in this case needs clear demonstration and clear example proving otherwise, because the group has visibility. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I rather think the person saying it's unverifiable should prove that it is, rather than the other way around. We live in a world where it is guilt that must be proven, not innocence.

In either event if the current version of an article is not of good quality, it should not be deleted, but improved. Deleting content simply because it is unfinished is not good editorial process no matter what way you spin it. - -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a mention of WP:AGF might be in order here. FrozenPurpleCube 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I know for a fact that there are plenty of third party sources that mention the Ultima Dragons, they've been mentioned in quite a few pieces of gaming literature. The problem is no one's really gone to the effort to track them down and properly write that information in and cite it.  I myself have added information on some of the projects that they've participated in.  One of them Ultima V: Lazarus got a lot of coverage in the gaming and general media, including PC Gamer, Slashdot, and Computer Gaming World.  By association with the many projects like that alone I'd think the group is notable.  As to verifiability, it's a valid complaint that it hasn't been properly cited or verified, but it can be.  How about letting those of us editing it do that instead of just deleting it because it isn't up to snuff? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obviously, I was the one who prodded it in the first place. I believe they exist, but I just don't see them as notable enough that there needs to be an article on them.  A brief mention in the Ultima article would be sufficient. Nandesuka 11:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree - I believe the UDIC fufills the criteria for notability of internet content. They've been the subject of several magazine articles, interviews, etc. all of independant, third-party sources.  Yes, the article doesn't reference them and I'm working on fixing that myself, since few others seem inclined to fixing it, however, it is true, and that is -exactly- one of the three criteria for governing such content.  See WP:WEB and also the proposed WP:ORG. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I must also disagree. The article itself is sufficiently long that it wouldn't fit well in the main Ultima article, and trimming it to fit would be removing too much useful information.   FrozenPurpleCube 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, please remember the article size guidelines - it's better organization to have it in a seperate article, IMO. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:43, 3 October 2006 (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.