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 keep. Though many of the keep votes are a bit lacking, there is quite clearly no consensus for deletion. Editorial decisions should be discussed at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds of Ultima[edit]

Worlds of 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)

This is a minor spin-off "series" that is already covered within the fourth paragraph of Ultima (series)#Overview. There is no actual content here anyway, especially due to the fact that there are only two actual games within it. TTN (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a perfectly notable series, two of the games made, and a third canceled. The number of games made in a series, doesn't determine whether or not the article is valid. I have added information to the article, finding an interview a developer did, and using that as a reference. Dream Focus 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If a spin-off series can fit within the main article, then that is it. It would have to take up a lot of space in order to actually warrant an article. If you don't agree with that, I suggest that you bring it up with the video game project. TTN (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy is not determined by the video game project. The games are Ultima only in name, using entirely different artwork and a totally different feel for play. They aren't just a spin off, but notable in their own right. Dream Focus 01:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but they do determine the proper way to manage such articles. The same thing was done with the Ultima Underworld "series", so this isn't any different. You do realize that you are arguing over absolutely nothing, right? It's the same exact content as what's already in the main article. TTN (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see you took it upon yourself to go around replacing articles for notable characters in the Ultima series, with redirects as well. Do you believe that all those who have worked on these articles, for the years they've been around, will agree with your opinion they should be eliminated, replaced with redirects? Why not discuss it on those talk pages before acting? Dream Focus 01:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The articles are completely dead and badly written. Such a "long lived" characters have only had thirteen edits this year. There is no reason to believe discussion is necessary (though I did ask if the Lord British article had any potential) with articles in that state. I'll get the number consensus at some point tomorrow, so you won't have to worry about that. TTN (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the games stop being made quite a number of years ago, then chances are, there isn't a lot of things that needed to be edited, nothing new coming out. How active an article is, does not determine where or not it should be deleted. Dream Focus 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Disruptive nomination. Nominator wanted to redirect page (meaning he believes the name is a plausible search term), but two users disagreed and restored the article. Now he's arguing for deletion without redirect, contradicting the belief that there's a plausible search term involved. There seems to be more spite/pique here than is warranted. And the discussion regarding the Ultima Underworld seres doesn't line up with the nominator's comments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The amazing thing about redirects is that they do not need to actually contain old, useless content. They can be recreated afterward, so there is nothing wrong with wanting such content deleted. TTN (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your redirects can be reverted as well, so there is nothing wrong with wanting such content preserved. Dream Focus 01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if it's a minor series then why do two of the games of the series have articles of their own? 76.66.193.221 (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but explaining why the nominator's claim appears inaccurate is. --Kizor 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply to my argument. I'm not pointing to other stuff I'm pointing to the same stuff If you read my argument, it should be evident. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You argument is still invalid - minor series are not necessarily non-notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as was stated as a reason for the revert to the redirect, the main article for Ultima does not contain more detailed information about this topic, and it would be best for page sizes to keep this article as if it were a split article from my point of view. It seems notable enough, and arguing that an article has little content is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is a work in progress, we should not delete pages because they are not complete. --Taelus (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To Ultima (series) - contains barely any content and is unnecessary as a standalone article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 07:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PERNOM is not a valid reason for deletion. Please stop copy and pasting WP:PERNOM, WP:ITSCRUFT, and WP:JNN votes rather than arguments in rapid fire fashion across multiple AfDs. We expect participants in these discussions to review the actual individual articles under discussion and the comments made by those above. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. The topic is notable, though I'm not sure how to best handle this particular instance. I'm not sure if there's any reason to keep a "sub-series" as a separate article when the main article could pretty much do. In any case, I don't see why this should be deleted. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.