Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codex of Ultimate Wisdom

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 Delete Nakon 17:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Codex of Ultimate Wisdom[edit]

This was proposed for deletion last week by Judgesurreal, and although the proposal was contested I have to agree that this is largely an in-universe plot repetition with no evidence of real-world notability or reliable third party sourcing. So here we are. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the nominator of this page. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there's no evidence that this item has any notability independent of being the MacGuffin of a few computer games. --Ig8887 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Ultima series is fundamental and seminal to the RPG genre, and among the most popular series ever created. I don't see a compelling reason why the Wiki should not include an entry on an endgame object from the game. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason put forth by the nominator is that the article is not notable—that is, it does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). If true, this is a compelling argument. That the Ultima series is notable has no bearing here, as notability is not inherited. The Codex must have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject in order to warrant an article. Can you provide such sources? Pagrashtak 00:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm reminded - let me digress for a moment - of how annoying it was a couple of years ago when a literal-minded and presumably well-meaning editor went after New York neighborhood articles with the citation tag. Once I got over wanting to throttle him, it was interesting to reflect on how little of what we know can actually be sourced at all. You can say things like "The street grid of Manhattan is largely bounded by Houston Street on the downtown side," but it's nearly impossible (and completely pointless) to actually find a source for that statement, other than "Yo, I was just down there." After a few days of mayhem, he quit it with the tag, and for all I know he may have become a useful editor. All he was doing, after all, was consistently and carefully applying WP:V, with no regard for the quality or type of information he added the tag to. It was outrageously destructive.

        Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is both disputed and only vaguely applicable, though there isn't much else that's any more on point. I don't even have to hit Google to know that there isn't going to be much to be sourced out there - it's only necessary to know that the game was released in 1985, before the Net had its current format and at a time when computer gaming was considered a fringe activity by and for the lunatic geek streak. In 1985 there were only a couple of magazines covering computer games. Computer Gaming World, probably the biggest, only published five issues that year. They are not indexed and exist only as PDF files.

        I just checked; there are under 8,500 hits for the Ultima IV. Compared to that, 2,600+ Google hits for the Codex itself give some indication of notability. In contrast, there are 315,000 hits for Ultima Online, which was played after the Net reached something like its current form. My point here is that the details of modern sourcing often have little to do with notability and much to do with the ins and outs of the medium.

        In any case, I don't think this is so much about the rules, which we all know, as it is about how we apply them. If they were easy to apply, it wouldn't be necessary to talk about them (and most of the time, it isn't - I'm a Deletionist). Asking for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is cutting with a mighty big knife. That can be and often is a way of establishing notability. In this case notability, if it exists, will come from a different place, since "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is hardly ever associated with computer games - or rap music, or snowboarding, or literary television, or thousands of other popular subjects - outside of the last few years. I don't reject WP:NOT, but I do urge that it be applied carefully.

        My personal instinct to keep is from this: I last played Ultima IV in 1991, or perhaps I'm confusing it with Ultima VI - whatever. Long time ago. The Codex appeared in many or most of the Ultima games. While browsing the AfD section I saw this and instantly knew what it was. I'm cautioned by WP:ILIKEIT, but like I say, that's how I'll apply the rules this time through.

        To wrap up, I note the comment about Ultima designer Richard Garriot in The New York Times, October 20, 1997 [1] - "With Ultima IV, he changed his thrust and added social commentary to the plot, making a goal of the game achieving 'the eight virtues of the avatar.'" The eight virtues are embodied and represented by the Codex, although the Times - no surprise - doesn't mention it by name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporal Tunnel (talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Duh. After all that, you'd think I'd sign the damn thing. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we already have an article on the virtues of Ultima, which is what your reference is really about. Is there any notability to the Codex that isn't actually notability of the virtues of Ultima? Not that I can see. This is simply an in-game object that you get when you've mastered the virtues. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Central aspect of a very significant and influential video game. The Ultima games are based on a very comprehensive philosophical system, where the article's subject is a central aspect. That said, the article could be improved, which, however, is something not really accomplished through deletion. Miqademus (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above, we have an article on virtues of Ultima. Therefore, this article needs to demonstrate notability separate from the virtues themselves and their philosophical impact on video gaming. The Codex is just an object in a video game unless a third-party source says otherwise. At best, merge the best part of this information into the virtues of Ultima article if you must. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Has this fictional item had substantial independent reliable coverage? Let's start with a web search. "Codex of Ultimate Wisdom" -wiki gets me 125 hits. Unless I've missed one, these are all fan sites, game guides, trivial mentions and Wikipedia clones. There's nothing here that can't be mentioned (with WP:V, natch) in Ultima. Marasmusine (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The codex has never been substantially covered in reliable sources, its essentially non-notable outside of the fictional ultima universe and will only ever be full of in-universe information and trivia. PirateMink 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and PirateMink. There's really not much more to say about the Codex than is already covered in the respective articles on the game in which it appears, and they're already covered there. The item doesn't need its own article. Xihr (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above. We already have an article about the Virtues of Ultima, but sadly it too lacks in any type of encyclopedic sourcing. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Besides saying that those who want to improve the quality of wikipedia are not being "useful", there is really no argument based on Wikipedia policies that supports keeping this article, and its notability and referencing issues remain unaddressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Slavlin (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any true Ultima fan has to see that this is not the way to write about it. User:Dorftrottel 10:04, January 29, 2008
  • 'Delete - no third-party sources about this in-universe MacGuffin; nothing here that can't be incorporated into other articles, if actually needed. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Virtues of Ultima per Ig8887's response to Corporal Tunnel's impassioned point. I've already started to WP:BOLDly merge some info in. -- RoninBK T C 20:11, 30 January 2008 (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/Codex_of_Ultimate_Wisdom&oldid=1137723526"