Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultima Online timeline (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:50, 22 September 2008

Ultima Online timeline

Fails to meet our sourcing requirements as seen in WP:GNG, since no reliable third-party sources can be found. Past AFD ended in no consensus because a few editors felt that such sources exist, but months later they can still not be found. Also might be a WP:COPYRIGHT violation since it takes substantially most of the expression of another website and reposts it to Wikipedia -- even an unreliable self-published website is entitled to copyright protection. Randomran (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (from nominator), or maybe merge I have changed my view of this to neutral. Some of the events in this timeline have sufficient third-party coverage, although the "timeline of Ultima Online" as a whole has not. I have always been uncomfortable and unclear on WP:SYNTH, and under what circumstances you can organize a bunch of disparate events into a discriminate list. I am also unsure if this list passes our policy on being WP:NOT indiscriminate. I defer to the judgment of the wider consensus as to whether to keep or delete. And if there *is* no consensus, I would lend my weight to a merge to Ultima Online as a compromise. Randomran (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; unfortunately, the nomination can't be withdrawn when there are good faith editors moving to Delete, as seen below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultima Online, since it documents the development of the game. 70.51.11.159 (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs more work per WP:NOEFFORT and WP:IMPERFECT. I don't play this game but found a good source in no time. I'll add it to the article in my copious free time... Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment People said that half a year ago and found nothing. We can't just assume the sources exist somewhere. But I'm always willing to reconsider my stance in the face of new evidence. Hope you can find that source sometime soon. Randomran (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a former player of the game, I remember seeing news of the events posted all over the place. I know they're out there. It's just a matter of finding them again and weeding out the unreliable ones. This article is just so low-traffic that I don't think anybody has bothered. I'm not sure they would, given another half-year, either, though, for the same reason. --Sydius (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Colonel Warden. It could use some love, but I don't think it should be deleted. Any obviously copyrighted text should be rephrased or deleted, but since much of this is about facts (which can't be copyrighted), it should be fixable. --Sydius (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where is this information supposedly coming from that is copyrighted? I looked at the working source for this article, and it says it gets its information from Wikipedia. So they may just be getting their information from this article. That's a problem of a different sort. --Sydius (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Look, the previous AfD closed as a "no consensus" on the strength of two out of seven editors voting Keep, claiming that reliable, independent sources exist. None have been presented, then or in the five months thereafter. A G-search turns up a number of hits for "Ultima Online" + "timeline," but none actually coming up with the goods. To quote from WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." As it stands, the article can't even make its mind up as to whether the timeline is about the fictional world, in-game (reports of invasions and catastrophes), or about release dates and subscriber benchmarks. The WP:NOEFFORT and WP:IMPERFECT essays don't immunize an article from the requirements of WP:V. RGTraynor 16:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that they can't be found. News articles may substantiate out-of-game issues, and all of the in-game events should be verifiable from the source (EA) as well as third-party in-game news sites, like Stratics. --Sydius (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be independent, reliable sources, which neither fan in-game websites nor EA are. Google News turns up all of nine hits for "Ultima Online" + "timeline," all of which refer to MMORPGs in general. If you believe that sources which satisfy WP:RS can be found, then provide some. Any. RGTraynor 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a mainstream organization to be independent or reliable, and even the source is acceptable under some circumstances. --Sydius (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (emphasis in the original) Further, "... self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." Of the two sources listed, one is a fansite, the other is the Ultima Online site. RGTraynor 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says here that primary sources (EA) can be used for descriptive sources, and I think that should especially be true for fiction. Analysis of the fiction should be removed if not found in a reliable third-party source, however, but the description of it could remain with only an EA source. Also, I would argue that some "fansites" are sources of credible published (to the Internet) materials with a reliable publication process. Especially the bigger ones that actually make money from it--these aren't just personal hobby sites, and many would include both accounts of fictional information and non-fictional information. I don't believe that putting this information into a time line is any kind of synthesis; more of a simple organization. --Sydius (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Also unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not ultimaonline.com, nor a fansite. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete I'm going to go look for some sources on this. UO was basically the first big online MMO (and the first commercial graphical MMO), so there is a non-trivial amount of scholarship on the subject. However, this timeline currently appears to be a mix of game publisher milestones (expansion packs, anniversaries, etc.) and in game activities. I can't see how that is appropriate or encyclopedic. My suspicion is that if sources are found that discuss this it may still be better (as an editorial matter) to merge this into Ultima Online, which is something of a shambles at this moment. I'll look tonight or tomorrow and try to get back with something. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — most of this is the real world history of the game, which should be merged into Ultima Online in the "History" section. No need for an entire article to show this (unless it's as incredibly detailed as Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, but whatever). sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prosify and Merge per Sephiroth. No need for a separate article yet. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most sections are one or two sentences. Someone can summarize this sub-article in a paragraph or two in the main article. VasileGaburici (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete This isnt the usual fictional article timeline, showing the course of events in the fictional world, what I think a very useful type of list-like article, though frequently challenged here. it's rather just the historical development of the game in bald outline, and this is better treated in the main article. It's real-world enough, but perhaps this shows the weakness of using that as the keep/delete distinction. DGG (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the Merge proponents, all the real world historical info's already in the main article, and in a good bit more detail to boot. RGTraynor 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First problem is that the article doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up. Is it a fictional timeline? Or a real world one? If it's a real world timeline, it is, as RGTraynor points out, wholly redundant. If it's a fictional timeline, it's trivial and redundant. As for sources, I see that our old friend B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 made his usual claim that sources could be readily found, but wound up unable to add a one.Kww (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources were added, though. CNN and a couple others. --Sydius (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Timeline doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. I recommend a merge of the timeline into the Ultima Online article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::: It doesn't have to be a mainstream organization to be independent or reliable, and even the source is acceptable under some circumstances. --[[User:Sydius|Sydius]] ([[User talk:Sydius|talk]]) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 :::: To quote from [[WP:RS]] "Wikipedia articles should use '''reliable, third-party, published''' sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative ''in relation to the subject at hand.''" (emphasis in the original)  Further, "... self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."  Of the two sources listed, one is a fansite, the other is the Ultima Online site.  [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;RGTraynor&nbsp;</span>''']] 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
+::::: It says [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources|here]] that primary sources (EA) can be used for descriptive sources, and I think that should especially be true for fiction.  Analysis of the fiction should be removed if not found in a reliable third-party source, however, but the description of it could remain with only an EA source.  Also, I would argue that some "fansites" are sources of credible published (to the Internet) materials with a reliable publication process.  Especially the bigger ones that actually make money from it--these aren't just personal hobby sites, and many would include both accounts of fictional information and non-fictional information.  I don't believe that putting this information into a time line is any kind of synthesis; more of a simple organization. --[[User:Sydius|Sydius]] ([[User talk:Sydius|talk]]) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per [[WP:SYNTH]]. Also unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not ultimaonline.com, nor a fansite. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 18:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Provisional delete''' I'm going to go look for some sources on this.  UO was basically the first big online MMO (and the first commercial graphical MMO), so there is a non-trivial amount of scholarship on the subject.  ''However'', this timeline currently appears to be a mix of game publisher milestones (expansion packs, anniversaries, etc.) and in game activities.  I can't see how that is appropriate or encyclopedic.  My suspicion is that if sources are found that discuss this it may still be better (as an editorial matter) to merge this into [[Ultima Online]], which is something of a shambles at this moment.  I'll look tonight or tomorrow and try to get back with something. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)