Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avatar (Ultima)

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 without prejudice to a merge discussion on the relevant talkpage(s). No reason to list this at AfD. Skomorokh  21:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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 ^talk 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

• Google Scholarly search fines many publications about the Avatar in them. [1] 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)

• Keep by either continuing to improve, but in any case per WP:PRESERVE, and as TTN indicates above, per the GFDL, content such as this, which has already been merged CANNOT be deleted. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 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)
• Merge to List of Ultima characters. Main character in a series of very notable computer games, well worth not deleting. This is pay-to-view, but looks promising:[2]. Fences&Windows 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• weak keep to merge I don't know what else to say about this, since everyone so eloquently said it above already, but I would like my opinion counted when the closing admin looks over this case, so here it goes...Avatar is a main character in a classic series.Ikip (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - per accademic source this is the character that introduced the now close to universal usage to describe our visual online representatives as "Avatars". Even if not for this the character would be noteable enough, i rememember reading about him as a child in gaming mags. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Where exactly is that being established? More directly where's the fact that the character and not the game creating the concept of in-game avatars stated?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My, that's splitting hairs. Fences&Windows 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite: the character is supposed to be a series-encompassing item in this case, while the game is a singular element in that series. It's like saying "did the man or the car establish Ford as a brandname and where is it said?" As it stood the source that was used stated only that the Ultima IV *game* had been first to use it, but that "Snow Crash" popularized it. The statement that was made in the article was original research on that fact.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about the notability of the character, not the game. And in this case, the character is anonymous, meaning that while the game might be exceedingly notable, the character isn't.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The character is named Avatar, and called that throughout the series. Its not something generic like Hero, or Insert Your Name Here. And to have that name take on its current meaning, because of this character, plus the other added references, should count for something. The character is found in 14 Ultima games, as well as a Japanese anime and manga series, plus also mentioned in the two novels. Dream Focus 04:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man - Although the sources say the it was the game Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar that introduced the concept of the Avatar , they are clearly also saying the Avatar character was responsible. The game couldn't have introduced the word if not for the eponymous character. If a source gives the time that a Wayne Rooney scored a penalty in an international match, we can also use that source for the time that England scored said penalty, even though that wording wasnt used. As long as we keep to the same meaning , its good practice to use different words, per Wikipedia:Plagiarism . An additional source has been added, out of the many thousands available. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The bit about Snow Crash popularizing the word Avatar in its current meaning, is ridiculous. I did some research, and found that magazines were calling characters that years before that book came out, it first in the popular well very well reviewed bestselling game Ultima 4, and then after that was found in the game Habitat, and elsewhere. It was well in use by plenty of people before Snow Crash was even published. Dream Focus 05:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You do realize you've discredited the source then altogether right? You can't say a source is dead wrong in one regard but then try to prop your article on it in another.

Also, regarding Gender Inclusive Game Design: "Origin systems released a sequel to the Ultima series in 1992 called Ultima VII Part Two, The Serpent Isle. While it didn't take place in the world of Britannia, it did include all of the Avatar's party members from Ultima VII, The Black Gate. However there was one major change. Players could choose their avatar's gender and race. This was a first in computer games. The models the artists used for the female avatars were female athletes, and the armor they wore was feminine, but not hypersexual. Overall, they were good representations of both gender and race." (p. 27)

Now anyway with a lick of sense is going to notice firstoff this isn't talking about the Avatar as a character, but an aspect of the game. Also it's not saying this was the first case a female playable character wasn't presented in a hypersexual tone like you stated in the article, but that it just didn't happen to be one. The overall statement is about Ultima VII part 2, not the Avatar. I'll leave the quote for people to judge that--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The character is an aspect of the game! The aspect of the game it is talking about, is the character! The article says it was the second female playable character ever, and that the previous one was overly sexual. It is about the Avatar. Dream Focus 14:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, the "sourcing" in the article is quite a mess. The first source is a dissertation, which is on the lowest rung of academic sources and not necessarily reliable on its face without further analysis. Even if the source is reliable, which is certainly possible, it is a case study of Ultima IV and Ultima IV only, yet Dream Focus has used the source as a basis for extrapolating importance beyond that single game, which I am not sure it does (though in fairness I do not have access to the entire source). I have just correted the innaccuracies perpetrated by DreamFocus in regards to this source in which he claimed it was a monograph rather than a dissertation and claimed it explored the implications of the character generally when it appears to just focus on Ultima IV as a case study. The second source was a power point presentation by a university professor that seems to blatantly disprove the importance of the Ultima series avatar in the evolution of the term since he says Snow Crash popularized it. DreamFocus now claims that source is dead wrong on that point, thereby apparently discrediting his entire source. The third source attempts to attatch importance to the ability of the player to choose their gender in a video game. The source is wrong that Ultima VII was first in this regard (Leather Goddess of Phobos and Alter Ego are two that come to mind off the top of my head, and there are probably others). And this was definately not the first game to present a female protagonist in a non-overly sexual manner (King's Quest IV: Perils of Rosella comes to mind immediately, and there are doubtless others as well if I wanted to stop and think about it, if her dress in that game is still too much for you, then I would point to Wendy in Maniac Mansion, a "brainy" character who is an aspiring novelist who wears pretty unremarkable jeans). We are therefore back where we started with little to no reliable sourcing. You want the article kept DreamFocus? Just meet the WP:V policy, which is incredibly inclusive in that it only requires material to be based on reliable third-party sources. So far, you have failed this charge. Indrian (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to remind you that WP:V says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. I have a reference to a published book, a reliable source, and whether you believe it true or not isn't relevant. What you said above sounds like original research. Dream Focus 14:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Not original research, just a quick and complete debunking of a source provided at one point in the article. If a source can be proven faulty then it is not reliable. This is different from OR, which would be if I wanted to create an article on Wendy and call her the first non-sexual female protagonist (which she probably was not anyway). Don't confuse source critique with trying to add new information to wikipedia. Indrian (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are many sources that say that the Avatar in the Ultima games, was the first use of the word in that form. I'll just find another source for that then. Dream Focus 14:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Incredibly" inclusive, or "unreasonably" so for a paperless encyclopedia? The subject is clearly verifiable at least, i.e. we should all be able to agree it is not just made up. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • This statement shows such a complete and utter lack of understanding about wikipedia's verifiability policy that I doubt you will ever truly understand what it means. WP:V is not about whether or not a subject exists; it is about whether or not the subject has been sufficiently discussed, analysed, and contextualized that enough material exists for an encyclopedia article. So far, there is no evidence of that for the Avatar. Is he the main charater of an important series? Yes. Was the charater involved in some video game firsts due to the innovative nature of the Ultima series? Yes. Does the character have an importance above and beyond his link to the Ultima series that requires a separate article beyond the articles on the series and the individual games? Perhaps, but only if reliable third-party sources say so. Right now, there is no evidence of this. Indrian (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I found another book to reference, one of many sources, and reworded the rest. [3] Check that edit there. Does this convince you of the character notability, when presented in this method of wording? Dream Focus 14:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The name of the character is Avatar. Just as in The Legend of Zelda games you choose a name at the start, but the character is still referred to is Link in the manuals and game reviews, so it is with the Ultima series. Final Fantasy and others do the same thing. The playable character can be named anything you want, at the start, but is referred to in all the publications by their proper name. Dream Focus 15:56, 18 August 2009 (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.