Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:47, 16 August 2009

Avatar (Ultima)

Avatar (Ultima) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Article has been more or less in the same shape as in January 2008: it fails both notability and verifiability. After doing a quick search, nothing to assert notability can be found, and since the merge discussion no attempt at improving the article has been made. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This article fails the core wikipedia policy of WP:V as there is no evidence of engagement with reliable third-party published sources. It is probably also original research, and thus fails the core policy of WP:OR as well. Indrian (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect. When I voted for delete I had not realized content had been merged. Indrian (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect. I already merged it, so I guess it can't be deleted. Whatever the case, it does not assert notability, so it does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect. Per GDFL merge guidelines, redirect to the List of characters.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —Cybercobra (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As I mentioned in other discussions, millions of people have played the Ultima games, the Avatar is the main character in all of them, and is notable enough to have appeared in other games made by other companies even. He has appeared in a Japanese Anime and manga series as well. The main character for such a notable series, deserves his own article. Dream Focus 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• To the nominator, Kung Fu Man, you say it fails verifiability. You can easily verify it exist. Does anyone doubt that? Just read any description of the game, from anywhere. The main character is the Avatar. See WP:SELFPUB number 4. Dream Focus 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Dream- I believe Kung Fu Man is referring to the lack of sources as to why it fails WP:V. No one is questioning the existence of this character, rather the existence of reliable sourcing to back up the content in the article the character's notability. (Guyinblack25 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

• Google Scholarly search fines many publications about the Avatar in them. I just added a reference to a book, published about how it the aspects of the Avatar developing in the games, is like that of religious architecture. Many published books by people with Ph.D, mention the Avatar in them. Dream Focus 19:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• That analyzes the game, not specifically the character. While broad topics such as that can sometimes for articles like this, this really isn't such a case, given the generic nature of the character. TTN (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Read it closer. It details the development of the Avatar. And the character is not generic in any way. No other game character has been through this much development, ever. Dream Focus 20:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe you can access the entire thing, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from the preview, it is quite clear that the Avatar is not a main point of discussion. It is just one of the many ways that the game and genre are discussed. And really, I haven't touched this series before, but I really doubt that the character is anything more than filler in order for the player to feel more involved, which makes the game deep, not the character. TTN (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, actually, it was a major changing point in the gaming industry. For the first time ever, a role playing game had moral consequences for their actions. If you killed someone from then on, they stayed dead, that never happening anywhere before. The character is not filler, but a major historical figure, as the games spread out over hundreds of years. The Avatar is their great hero, the key to the foundation of their society, the inspiration which they must all follow the example of. This is true in the books as well, I having read a couple of them. The Avatar was also one of the first characters one could play as female, as a reference to a book I just added proves. That adds to the claim of notability. Dream Focus 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• What you're describing is the impact of the series, not the character. The Avatar is a key character from a storyline perspective. What you're describing is from a gameplay perspective, which is much more relevant to the series. While you can say "The Avatar is the first female character", the proper description would be "Ultima # was unique in the fact that the player could choose from either a male or female character, and ..." You're just doing everything in your power to make this more important than it is in actuality. It would be so much more beneficial for you to work on the series article instead. TTN (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Right, Ultima IV was a major turning point in the industry for just the reasons you describe, and the Avatar character is a hero that is important to the Ultima series. For the character to have his own article, however, I believe more is needed to show the character has importance outside of the game itself. All of the points you raise are valid, but can be adequately covered in articles on the individual Ultima games and the series as a whole. Indrian (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• As TTN indicates above, per the GFDL, content such as this, which has already been merged CANNOT be deleted. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect - strip out all the original research, and you have a small amount of information that can be included in the main Ultima series article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep in some form. Apologies for a bit of a rant: to me, common sense dictates that if you're writing an encyclopaedia article on a giant big series of fiction, and that series has a recurring protagonists, then heck yes, that protagonist should have an article of its own. You can always argue about characters of lesser importance and whether they need articles of their own, but bloody hell, if recurring major characters don't deserve articles, what frigging does? In conclusion, AfD is a relic from days when we thought we could somehow manage the amount of interesting information through centralised community discussion, and needs to be abolished and replaced with some processes that work in this day and age. I'm sure the article is fixable, but bringing stuff to AfD accomplishes nothing. Do what you want with the article - I'm sure common sense will eventually prevail. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect seems to be a rare instance of consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 19:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Normally I support merging characters, but not the main character in a major series. Abd sees consensus on the fact that a deletion is rendered impermissible by GFDL, & he is correct. But if we have reached agreement that we can not delete, that does not mean we have consensus to redirect rather than merge or keep separate. What would be logical is to conclude we could speedy keep, and continue on the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Games or sports)
• AfD debates