Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord British

Add links
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. I'm simply not seeing a consensus here. The coverage being shown here is on the thin side (as some editors argue) but not so obviously inadequate that I can substantially discount the keeps. Conversely, there seem to be legitimate objections to a merger both on process and content; I generally consider process-based arguments to be weak at AfD, because that tends to reflect a behavioral problem that AfD isn't set up to deal with; but it is significant that a very recent merge discussion did not find consensus, and nobody has really suggested that the evidence has changed since then. The opposition to a merger on the substance is also strong. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord British[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Lord British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've addressed this before, but frankly speaking, while Richard Garriott, who also goes by Lord British, is notable, the character based upon him is not. WP:BEFORE becomes notoriously hard, but when you rifle through it you find that the character is often seldom discussed as a fictional character.

In addition, while it's been suggested players trying to find ways to kill the character across the Ultima series gives him notability (leading to the coining of the "Lord British Postulate" trope, though trying to find sources on that shows it's also barely discussed in SIGCOV) I'm going to argue that gives Ultima as a series notability, especially Ultima Online, but the character itself doesn't inherit that notability. The reactions are more to a recurring game mechanic, and not the fictional character.

And that's the important thing to remember: this is an article about a fictional character. Notability needs to demonstrate why the character itself matters beyond the series. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Richard Garriott. As others have stated Lord British doesn't seem to be independently notable from Garriott and the Ultima series. Also, half the article and two thirds of the references are about killing Lord British in-game, which is a long-running Ultima community joke, so even if we were to retain this article, it should probably be about killing said video game character. Cortador (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears that consensus for a redirect is forming. If this happens, please add a "This article is about the game developer. For the video game character etc." note to Garriotts article that links to List of Ultima characters. Thank you! Cortador (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cortador: The consensus which seems to be forming is not for a pure redirect but a merge, i.e. that Lord British the character, created and represented by Richard Garriot, should be covered within the article about Richard Garriot the person. Therefore an intro like you suggest would not be appropriate. Daranios (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would only be the case if Lord British the character wasn't already covered in the List of Ultima characters article. Cortador (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cortador: I disagree. If there is a decision to merge and then redirect to Richard Garriot, that means consensus is that the character Lord British is best (and in the end most extensively) covered within the context of that article. The entry in List of Ultima characters is then the lesser version limited to what's necessary to cover it within that context, which should refer back to Richard Garriot. Only if there was consensus to merge to List of Ultima characters as suggested by (Oinkers42) would it be the other way round. Daranios (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, little to add. The character has no in depth significant coverage and any sourced information is easily contained at the parent topic. -- ferret (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Oppose Merge to Richard Garriott - there was a merge discussion that was closed less than a month ago as no consensus. Link here: Talk:Richard Garriott#Lord British merge proposal. No comment on the article itself. If it were to be merged, may I suggest List of Ultima characters? (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus does not mean it cannot be re-discussed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would would it be problematic to you to be working towards a new consensus on something that we couldn't find a consensus on before? And what "procedure" would support such an approach? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sergecross73, while our policies urge us to do otherwise, I cannot believe that this AFD was started in good faith. Previously, Kung Fu Man began a merge discussion about this article that concluded just three weeks ago with a result of no consensus. Then, an AFD is brought here in which not one person at the time I type this has actually voted for deletion of the material or a straight redirect. Instead, the pro votes are all to merge material into an article that they could not get consensus on the first time around. I find it hard to believe the nominator really wants this article deleted as opposed to merged, since that was their original stated desire for this content. While merge is, of course, a valid AFD outcome, this reeks of forum shopping, which does not sit well with me at all. Indrian (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Richard_Garriott#Lord_British_merge_proposal That merger discussion was opened from July 26th to November 7th, he then closed it himself with the results he wanted. I reverted him, and then someone not involved closed it as a no consensus to merge. So plenty of time for people to comment there and discuss it. Dream Focus 23:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems a consensus is already forming, but anyway: my dissenting opinion is that with the coverage the killing of Lord British has received, which describes impact beyond the Ultima series ("brought the phenomenon of player killing [...] to the attention of game designers"), plus the reception as a character, there is enough material to have a stand-alone article. I have no problem with rearranging (and possibly renaming) the article around this killing as the most-discussed incident as suggested by Cortador. I don't find that necessary, though, as then the reception would have to be accomodated in a different way somehow. Daranios (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Haleth, Cukie Gherkin, SnowFire, Dream Focus, Shooterwalker, Evilcasper, Charcoal feather, Indrian, and Mika1h: Pinging participants of the merge discussion not yet present. Daranios (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest redirecting Lord British to Richard Garriott, and creating a new article called "Lord British Postulate" or "Killing of Lord British" which is about killing the character, as that does indeed seem to be the most transcendent aspect of Lord British. Cortador (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous merge discussion comments, with a second choice of Restore Redirect to List of Ultima characters#Lord British (as I will certainly grant the existing sourcing is borderline - I feel confident more sourcing exists but I'm not the person to dig it up). Strong oppose to merging to Richard Garriott, which is conceptually wrong. Yes, Lord British is based on Garriott, and yes, Lord British is a nickname of Garriott, but Lord British is a fictional character. He is not the same as the real-life person. This would be like merging an article on a borderline-notable movie character to the character's actor rather than the movie itself. The character is a creature of Ultima, not of real-life Garriott. The nickname usage can simply be a hatnote to Garriott's article. SnowFire (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I pointed out in the merge discussion, there is coverage for the character of Lord British without having anything to do with his creator. Richard Garriott doesn't walk around dressed as a king and role playing as Lord British all the time. Significant coverage about the character exist. https://www.eurogamer.net/will-richard-garriotts-lord-british-survive-the-night https://www.gamesradar.com/final-fantasy-14-legend-yoshi-p-witnessed-one-of-early-mmo-historys-most-infamous-mishaps-firshand/ https://www.pcgamer.com/the-50-most-iconic-characters-in-pc-gaming/ The article is well referenced with too much content to fit in another article. Dream Focus 20:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A top 50 List as significant coverage? Really? Each entry only gets a couple sentences. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A reliable source considers the character to be one of the "most iconic characters in PC gaming". The other two links give far more coverage of the character of course. Dream Focus 20:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Eurogamer article can be summed in a sentence or two at most. It has nothing to do with Lord British as a character. It's his player avatar in a spiritual successor game, proving the point that the name is more intrinsically tied to him than Ultima...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That article mentions how the character could be killed in different games, and is far more than two sentences about that aspect alone. Dream Focus 22:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 20:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I could certainly be convinced that this article should be merged somewhere, but this appears to be a spurious AFD. Since no one is actually voting delete, or even redirect, the only way I can view this is as an attempt to end run around the prior failed merge discussion. I will repeat what I said then, where my objection centered on the merge target article rather than on the concept of merging the material generally. Garriott dropped a lot of references to himself and his friends (and sometimes his enemies) across all the Ultima games, but that does not mean these fictional characters should ever be confused with their real world inspirations. Garriott’s article could certainly use a little more info on the origin of the Lord British persona, but if the Lord British article is to be merged, it should point to an article on the Ultima series, not Richard Garriott’s article. Indrian (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian Even in the source Dream Focus mentioned above, he's continued to use the name and appearance to represent himself in games beyond the Ultima series. It's not a far fetch to suggest that the target is fair.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is fair game to mention in his article, but that is very different from asserting that the Lord British character IS Garriott. The character in the games is not Garriott anymore than the bloodthirsty pirate Captain Hawkins is actually Trip Hawkins. Garriott does this a lot. Some are in jokes, some are easter eggs, and yes, some like Captain Hawkins are (not so) subtle takedowns of people Garriott feels aggrieved by, but they are all references. The target article people are calling for this to be merged into is not the right one to deal with this. And this is the wrong forum considering the previous merge attempt. Start a merge discussion (NOT an AFD) to a target article I feel is appropriate, and you will likely have my support. Indrian (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian I started an AfD because genuinely, I feel the character itself is not notable. While merging is a viable option, as other have pointed out options such as The killing of Lord British or the Lord British Postulate are both also viable options, and aren't able to be covered by a merge discussion (especially when there's disagreement on *where* to merge it, as brought up by that previous discussion). I would be grateful if you assumed some good faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple sources assert notability. According to Wired magazine, "among fans [of Ultima].. no [character] was more revered than Lord British, ruler of Britannia". [1] The book 100 greatest video game characters (2017) published by Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 9781442278127 takes a serious justified approach to the list, devoting a chapter to Lord British.[2] The PC Gamer magazine (2021) included Lord British in its list of 50 most iconic game characters.[3] Lord British (the character) is discussed throughout the book Virtual Justice: the new laws of online worlds (2010) published by Yale University Press.[4] The book The evolution of fantasy role-playing games (2011) [5] discusses an important aspect of the Lord British character, also discussed in the book Creating Things That Matter. [6] Archive.org has nearly 13,000 results for Lord British. Most of it is gaming magazines from the 1980s. But there is reliable content, also. More help requested searching these sources I found the above sources in the first 22 pages of results (each page is about 50 so there might be 260 pages of results, I only got through the first 10%). -- GreenC 02:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC Going into a source analysis, the first is a brief and only mention in that article with no further discussion. The second list discussed above as pointed out by Serge offers no discussion or reception; it's a listicle, and that's coming from someone that frequently cites lists in articles. Virtual Justice: the new laws of online worlds is discussing how a player circumvented laws in a game, and is more about Garriot's reaction than anything with the character. The evolution of fantasy role-playing games further illustrates that the death of Lord British in Ultima Online is more notable than his character, and frankly I would not oppose moving the subject matter to an article built around that. 100 greatest video game characters is more about Garriot's role as the character...and again the in-game death. Lastly, this is a misnomer: adding "Ultima" to the search alongside "Lord British" cuts it down to under 5k results, and a cursory glance will show many of them are simply copyright acknowledgements. "Gastly" by itself pulls down 8k, but that alone isn't going to have an article. Popping up in search results does not automatically mean WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a direct assertion of notability, it is significant in coverage, the same way a source that claimed "Gandis one of the most important people in human history" is significant, even though a single sentence. Significance does not mean only word count, this has been gone over forever. The second one is a book it's not a listicle discounting that source is overreach. Virtual Justice demonstrates how notable the character is it was used for an academic study, again discounting that source is overreach. The search on Internet Archive for text inside books doesn't work that way unfortunately you have to choose words that are adjacent otherwise you get inaccurate totals. I explained why I posted that search result, and PLACED THAT REASON IN BOLD TEXT SO NO ONE COULD MISREPRESENT IT. But of course you misrepresented it anyway, along with all your other misrepresentation of the sources. I don't find your objections to be credible, they are rationalizations. -- GreenC 04:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I meant to say "the third" in regards to the list. The PC Gamer article is a listicle. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability: displaying significant discussion on the subject in question. A sentence going stating "among fans [of Ultima].. no [character] was more revered than Lord British, ruler of Britannia" by itself is offering nothing to that end no matter what publication it's in. And as for your outrage in "misrepresenting", you dropped a link saying there were "13k results" when you didn't bother to refine it yourself. Assuming good faith here, but reading these sources one has to consider what would be said in a citation regarding them. We can't refbomb a character into being notable, plenty of past AfDs have shown that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been engaged in AfD for decades and know precisely what notability means. The problem is you have a singular view, and one not held by everyone. There has been considerable discussion on this topic in the appropriate forums. What do you mean I didn't refine it?! I said clearly I checked the first 10%, and requested help from other editors to find additional sources. Do you have a problem with that? Now your accusing me of bad faith. You are something else. I have nothing more to say to you. -- GreenC 04:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of bad faith and apologize if that came across wrong, I'm pointing out you cast too wide a net with the search you linked: searching for "Lord British" is going to turn up any article about Garriot, or his other uses of the character in non-Ultima appearances. You need to search for "Lord British" and "Ultima" together if you're going to dig through Archive.org.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to bludgeon the discussion, but my opinion on the matter is still completely unchanged despite the above debate and "Keep" !votes. The above sources largely talk about Lord British as an "alter-ego" or "avatar" of Richard Garriott, and the real person and the avatar are intrinsically linked to the point it does not make sense to have two articles. The thing Lord British is most known for is being Richard Garriott. It does seem like we're headed for a "yes, Lord British is technically notable, probably shouldn't have an article but half the people believe he should" result and a redux of the merge discussion, so it was relatively pointless to do this AfD to confirm that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge as compromise. As most of the keep !votes still support a merge to a different target, I sympathize that neither target makes 100% sense.
    • This article is substantially about the fictional character (but largely unsourced).
    • Outside of WP:PLOT summaries, the scant sources about its reception is about it being an avatar of the Richard Garriott (but is only a brief part of the current article, as written).
  • The solution is to summarize the information and cover each aspect in both articles, with a "see also" hatnote below the section header. There isn't substantial material in either case (Lord British is a recurring character in the series, Lord British is also surrogate character for Richard Garriott). I recommend that the redirect aim towards the fictional character, but that's something that can easily be decided through editing, after the AFD is closed. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shooterwalker: I disagree with the scant sources about its reception is about it being an avatar of the Richard Garriott: The brief reception section we have deals with the evaluation of the character sans any relation to Richard Gariott. The impact of the "assassination" of the character is only tangentially related to its creator. That said, and while I remain with my keep !vote, if there should be consensus to merge, the described split of present information to those two targets seems the best course of action to me. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources presented demonstrate notability and a merge to either Richard Garriott or the list article would be awkward. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 20:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The duration and depth of coverage, even if just for one aspect of the character, is sufficient to meet GNG. Nothing wrong with a merge discussion, I just disagree that it necessarily must be enforced as a matter of policy. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jclemens The problem is there's some partial agreement that merging is viable, but nobody can agree to where. It's been suggested to possible reformat the article to focus on the Ultima Online death as The killing of Lord British and work the postulate into there, but what you think about that as an option?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The very long merge discussion Talk:Richard_Garriott#Lord_British_merge_proposal was open from July to November. No reason to have another merge discussion, there no way for people to convince each other. Too much valid information to fit in any other article. Creating a new article for some of the information makes no sense at all. Why have an article for the killing of a character, without an article telling who the character was and explaining why they were so important? Dream Focus 11:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles of a similar nature such as Corrupted Blood incident without having to have a "Hakkar the Soulflayer" character article, and by your own citations most revolve around attempts to kill this character. Even the 1000 Video Games Heroes book citation is almost entirely about the Ultima Online event.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is completely unrelated. Its about a single event that happened in World of Warcraft. There are references in this article talking about the Lord British character, and about how he was killed in other games. Dream Focus 17:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, only one of these deaths was a notable event and helped define the whole "postulate". Lord British doesn't inherit notability due to the event, the same reason Hakkar doesn't due to the Corrupted Blood bug.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You want to delete this article and create a much smaller one for just one event? Dream Focus 18:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want to create a much more fleshed out one for that event. When you remove unnecessary sentences like "Lord British does not appear in Ultima VIII" the article's currently much smaller than it seems. But sources like this make it clear it was an important event all its own. British by himself isn't notable, but the killing, and the elements that led to players habitually wanting to kill his character to a lesser extent, are.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: most revolve around attempts to kill this character does not mean all secondary sources do. Those others should have a place, too. And as Dream Focus said, even an article centered around the killing of the character would need to say who the character was and explaining why they were so important. And then we are basically back where we are now, an article about the character with a majority of the discussion about the killing incident. If that's the case, wouldn't Lord British as a title be more in accordance with the WP:CONCISE policy than Killing of Lord British? (The killing of Lord British would stand in contradiction to WP:DEFINITE.) Keeping the simpler title in no way hinders you to further flesh out the killing event within our article here. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios: Well if you're certain, write a reception section focusing on anything other than killing his character. Please, do. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong looking at these sources. Show that there's SIGCOV not revolving around how players want to kill him but illustrating he has real world importance as a fictional character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
== Reception ==
In a 2021 list published by PC Gamer staff, Lord British is ranked among the most iconic characters in PC gaming.
Wired magazine called Lord British "an idealized father figure - strong and brave, patient and loving, wise and powerful".
Significant doesn't mean long, but context. Various reliable sources consider the character significant. Dream Focus 11:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dream you and I are both aware that's trivial and not what SIGCOV means. That wouldn't even hold up a Pokemon article on its own!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not trivial to mention how notable a character is. Trivial would be to mention they were in a game without saying anything else about them. Trivial is defined as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trivial of little worth or importance, but this mentions their worth and importance. Dream Focus 11:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What we have as reception is short, but like Dream Focus I believe not trivial. More importantly, notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles. I am not arguing that there is enough coverage about Lord British as a character when excluding sources about his killing. And frankly, I do not want to invest the time to find out the answer to this theoretical question. Because I believe the most convenient solution is to have one article here covering both the killing event(s) and other aspects of the character. Which would make the unresolved merge target question obsolete. The rest then are editorial questions about what best to name the article and how to best arrange the contents, not reasons for deletion. Daranios (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, quite frankly, you're arguing that the character should inherit notability from the event. Even the overall *killing* of the character across the games isn't notable. The main Ultima Online event is, due to the reactions to it. And DreamFocus's citations fail WP:SIGCOV: quick, short mentions of a character that don't provide notability to a subject. Just two passing mentions for a "short" reception section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at this from two angles, both leading to almost the same result: On the one hand, there is coverage by secondary sources on the character, a larger portion(?) of them dealing with the killing event, and a smaller portion of them dealing with other aspects of the character, which together give us enough material to fullfill WP:WHYN. So we can have an article on the character, which obviously includes the killing incident.
On the other hand, if we look at the killing incident as an event, and there is enough coverage in secondary sources to make this event notable, we could have an article about this event. But to have relevant context, it would still need to include as already discussed "who the character was and explaining why they were so important". Fine. Which leaves the question where to put the commentary by secondary sources on the character unrelated to the killing incident. Assuming that this information is not so long as to suggest having two separate articles as more readable, the solution which suggests itself to me in accordance with WP:MERGEREASON #3 is to include that information here. (Which, by the way, is pointing to WP:NOTINHERITED which you have referred to.) And then we are back at our article and the editorial question if it should better be named Lord British or Killing of Lord British. Daranios (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What secondary sources though? The ones provided above are either a) about the killing or b) about Garriot. Reception towards the character itself is near nonexistent, partly because if you don't include Garriot in there it doesn't matter. This isn't a case like Weighted Companion Cube, where people's perceptions towards a character shaped how they perceived it and there was discussion on that. You have an unfortunate situation in the end where a character is known, and nothing is said about them. All the information on Lord British (the character) can easily be included in his list entry (which it already is) and linked back to from that article, which can as is give a summary of the character. But British the fictional character needs to demonstrate notability as a fictional character, not because of one game event that was discussed due to being one of the earliest MMO controversies, and not due to its creator who uses it as his secondary persona or his actions through his avatar.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fear we start to recover old ground. What we have on the character besides his relation to Richard Garriot and the assassination is the reception section, which I do not find trival. Nor are these passing mentions, they refer to the character very directly and explicitely. And the plot summary in sources like the Kotaku and 100 greatest video game characters p. 120, and others. All of that is short enough that would fit into List of Ultima characters#Lord British, but not "near nonexistent". The relationship to Richard Garriot could be merged to Richard Garriot. And we could have a separate article on the Killing of Lord British. I am not fundamentally opposed to such a solution, I find it feasible. But I simply find having these three types of information, all intrinsically linked to the character Lord British in one place the preferable option. And there was no consensus by a wider array of persons for such a solution at the previous merge discussion either. What I would be fundamentally opposed to would be removing what we have as a reception and the like from Wikipedia alltogether. Daranios (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the problem becomes one of WP:UNDUE: most of the discussions about the Ultima Online event does not actively discuss the character in the context, only the event and the reactions. A similar instance happened with Sombra (Overwatch), where she had an ARG tied to her reveal, and there was massive discussion about that. Earlier versions of her article included that discussion, which brought into question, again, Undue, the implication of her inheriting notability from it, and whether that discussion was better as its own article or part of the Development article. It was separated, but Sombra stands on her own because there's active discussion about Sombra as a character (and speaking frankly there's enough discussion on the ARG I'll probably flesh it out into its own article eventually). So there is a precedent for whether an event tied to a character should make the subject "count" for notability itself.
I think you get what I'm trying to argue, that the event eclipses the character and it itself doesn't provide notability, and would further require it to be discussed in diminished capacity to avoid Undue if it is bootstrapped here. I will say I'm not opposed to the idea of including what little reception British has in his list entry as we do with others. That would preserve the information while also leaving the opportunity to spin it back out if by some chance the subject gets enough SIGCOV as a fictional character later.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per above. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - from reading and studying all the newly developed dialogue and discussions from above, it seems the subject matter is, in my opinion, worthy to be a standalone article that passes WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge or bust Bit ambitious. A selective merge that splits information between Richard Garriott and Ultima (series) seems like the only commonsense outcome to avoid the inconvenience of heaping excessive in-universe information in Garriott's biography or removing it altogether. I don't think a generic merge to Richard Garriott is the best outcome. The useful information about Lord British consists of Garriott's self-identification and presentation with the character, and then the appearances and characteristics of that character in the Ultima series, including the invincibility arc. These are fairly conceptually separate. If there's enough significant coverage a creation of the Killing of Lord British article or like would be valuable without invoking the notability issues for the character. Given the complexity of the discussion I have a feeling I am only adding fuel to the fire, but at least it's nice and toasty! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lord_British&oldid=1192073379"