Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultima Online timeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus to delete. However, there are rumbles of a possible future merge/redirect. That would be for the talk pages of the relevant articles though, not for AfD. "No consensus", of course, defaults to keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultima Online timeline

Ultima Online timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Poorly sourced, unnotable crufty plot summaries.

This article has very poor sources, with one being a broken link and the other coming from an inappropriate third party, suggesting that notability has not been established for the subject of this article to non-Ultima Online players and the real world.

The article contains a mixture of cruft-like plot summaries and release dates in the form of a directory/list, both of which are what Wikipedia is not and is likely to attract unwelcome original research.

This article has these issues to deal with that other editors apparently are not interested in fixing, giving little chance for this article's survival. IAmSasori (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'd have suggested Transwikify but UOCodex has already got it covered here, or Merge but anything meaningful can be found in Ultima Online. It's surplus to requirements. Gazimoff (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to the main article on Ultima Online. That's where the relevant information regarding its release cycle belongs unles it can't accomodate the information, which it looks like it could. Celarnor Talk to me 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic as a stand-alone article. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as encyclopedic and verifiable sub-article with plenty of published sources. Any deletion argument with "cruft" in it is weak. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You have provided a link to books about "Ultima Online", not about an "Ultima Online timeline". You are being disingenuous. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I would rather at least make some effort to find sources than to just do nothing more than go down the list of AfDs rapidly voting deleting without making any effort to improve articles. Anyway, these sources can be mined for information with which to reference an article in this nature. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Do I see this right that the timeline somehow mixes in-universe and real-world events? In any case, I don't see a reason why we would want an extra article just for the timeline. The dates relevant for Ultima Online can be in its article, nothing warrants a sub-article. And things relevant for the history of massively multiplayer online games should be covered there. --Minimaki (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I think a good solution would be to divide the article then between in-universe and real-world timelines. In any event, even in a worse case scenario we would redirect the article without deletion since a redirect location exists and because it's not a hoax, copy vio, or libel. It is important for RfAs that as much of editors' contrib history remain public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, the in-universe problem can be fixed, it just was an indication to me that this is not really a sub-article, but something completely abandoned. And I fail to see the connection to RfAs, can you explain? --Minimaki (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was musing on it being merged into the Ultima Series article but other articles across wikipedia have succinct timelines as separate articles for clarity. There will be 3rd person commentary out there for such a long-lived franchise. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 7 April 2008 (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.