Wikipedia:DRV

From Wiki

Sword of Moonlight

Jump to: navigation, search

Revision as of 05:57, 11 August 2011

Template:Deletion review log header

2 August 2011

Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool (closed)

Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Template:DRV links

Admin deletor did not wish to discuss deletion. Suggested DRV, which is something I might add that does not appear in the prod/AfD/deleted page templates at all. Would be very helpful to newcomers and admins alike if it did!!

I (page creator) was not at all expecting a deletion, after the discussion. So I was shocked/disgusted when it occurred. I've taken a lot of time to read over the subject of notability and Wikipedia infighting. However I still believe that the delete was done without an understanding of the debate. Since all of the issues raised in the debate were addressed before closing. Even though the admin would've had to pay attention to the debate and look at the page itself and to give a damn to see this.

I consider the page well written by the Wikipedia standards I'm familiar with. Referenced, neutral, substantial but not overdrawn, worthy of the subject matter. The topic itself I refuse to believe is unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I am a huge advocate of Wikipedia, and consider it a modern "wonder of the world" and the thought that this page would be deleted totally shook me. I read Wikipedia almost every day, several articles a day, making helpful anonymous edits whenever the need arises, but I've never had a reason to make a page, indeed the variety of pages on Wikipedia is impressive. Sometimes I don't however find a page for what I'm looking for. It would shake me to know that the page is not there, not because no one has endeavored to start it, but because someone had taken it upon themselves to delete it. Due to notability, triviality, or whatever. Anyway, the basis for deletion was notability. A) The very nature of the topic should allow the page to stand notable or otherwise... but there was a source from a RS which itself was sourced from the number one publication on the subject matter in Japan. And B) I am positive if you fly to Japan and rummage around in peoples basements for decade old magazines and such you will find the kinds of sources that Wikipedia so prizes in its current guidelines configuration according to some zealous editors. But C) this is way to high of a barrier of entry and just flies in the face of common sense.

The deletion in this case seems perverse to the extreme. If I was not so utterly convinced of the value of Wikipedia I might dismiss it, and encourage others to do the same, and certainly not donate money to the cause. But instead I'd prefer to use this as a prime example of how Wikipedia can run afoul and get more involved in seeing that this doesn't happen in the future.

I believe there needs to be an addition to the deletion templates that advertise A) the DRV process itself. And B) there should be a project to keep track of well written pages with undeniably interesting content with universal appeal that are deleted purely on the basis of the leanings of the parties involved. Eg. not considered important, or references are too difficult to come by, etc. An anti ignorance project more or less, to see if a cost benefit analysis could be had of all this deletion activity. Because I'm sure it turns a lot of people off, and just wastes a lot of peoples time, and generates a lot of unnecessary meta content that Wikipedia must keep track of in its databases.

I keep a copy of the page at deletion time here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Truth_Glass/Sword_of_Moonlight:_King%27s_Field_Making_Tool) just to be sure we are referring to the same content (since deleted pages are hidden behind a veil of secrecy) and for posterity/reference sake. Truth Glass (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment You said: (since deleted pages are hidden behind a veil of secrecy)

For the purposes of an AfD, they can be (temporarily) restored. You don't need to point fingers; you can just request that this be made available for the purpose of a WP:DRV. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Endorse Deletion The AfD demonstrated that no sources could be provided to support WP:N. I even attempted to find some, both in English and in Japanese (and I have plenty of experience doing such searches), and I was unsuccessful at locating sources that provided in-depth content of the game. Let's go through your nomination:

Since all of the issues raised in the debate were addressed before closing.

How were the issues addressed? Please show us the sources that fulfilled WP:GNG.

Sources were found / inline cited. Language was cleaned up (ON DEMAND) and "notability" was even established! --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If I was not so utterly convinced of the value of Wikipedia I might dismiss it, and encourage others to do the same, and certainly not donate money to the cause.

Arguments that involve threats are not going to help your case.

What threats? There is probably a bias here, because if there is really a deletionist/inclusionist divide, I wonder which side would be manning the deletion project pages?? --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

...I'd prefer to use this as a prime example of how Wikipedia can run afoul and get more involved in seeing that this doesn't happen in the future.

See WP:POINT.

What does that have to do with raising awareness? --Truth Glass (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am positive if you fly to Japan and rummage around in peoples basements for decade old magazines and such you will find the kinds of sources that Wikipedia so prizes in its current guidelines configuration according to some zealous editors.

Assuming that "sources exist" somewhere in Japan is a stretch. And this really doesn't fall under any kind of WP:COMMONSENSE.

They are guaranteed to exist. No high profile software is released by a high profile company, for a high profile game series, without any periodical sources!! No retail game gets released without establishment coverage. --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The very nature of the topic should allow the page to stand notable or otherwise

See WP:ITSIMPORTANT.

The topic is encyclopedic because its part of series of topic which can be categorized, which all have their own pages already, and its informational, meaning something people want to be able to find out information about. If Wikipedia cannot fulfill that role then its failing as an information source. Maybe its succeeding as a bizarre social experiment, but I prefer the former. This is just a glaring common sense call IMO --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

...but there was a source from a RS which itself was sourced from the number one publication on the subject matter in Japan.

Are you talking about Famitsu? This article? Yeah, and this didn't contain any subtantial content. You'll notice it talks more about Eternal Ring and only mentions the game at the very end. This isn't WP:INDEPTH.

It talks exactly 50/50. The fact that a more traditional "game" got top billing is regardless. Either way it sources Famitsu for the information. What more can you possibly demand? We're not writing Wikipedia for the "leaders of the game industry" we are writing it for the people / the editors... in case you've forgotten. This is really scummy. I don't have the stomach to engage in this kind of discussion. And please don't comment on my remarks unrelated to the article. Go outside and get some fresh air instead. --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe there needs to be an addition to the deletion templates that advertise...

This doesn't belong on DRV. Check out the village pump instead.

But people who SHOULD care about it area already gathered here!! This is not meant to be a discussion of that. --Truth Glass (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, the administrator made a proper decision in my opinion because the keep arguments did not address the notability issues that the article suffered from. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertising the deletion review process more clearly is a reasonable idea, and I don't see any reason why that can't be done. As for the rest of it—well, this is deletion review, not deletion rubber stamping, and part of our job is to provide FairProcess on demand. The nominator needs to feel that they've had a fair hearing, so with a nominator who's new to our processes I think we always need to inspect the debate and the close carefully. I'd begin by asking Spartaz: I understand why the debate seems to have found that the game wasn't notable, but many of the recommendations showed ignorance of the alternatives to deletion, so the fact that they said "delete" in bold is not to be taken at face value. Why did you reject Marasmusine's view?—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I rejected it because no-one else supported it and even this vote acknowledged that there wasn't enough sourcing for a standalone article. To support the redirect argument over the delete votes would have been to discard well founded policy based argument around sourcing and that would have been a breathtaking supervote if I had done this. I have no objection to someone adding the redirect as an editorial judgement but I certainly saw no consensus for a redirect over deletion and my role as the closing admin is to read the consensus not substitute an alternative outcome unless there is a strong meta consensus to allow this (i.e redirecting elementary/primary schools to the education board/LEA). Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  - Note for those uninterested in trawling through my talk page archives just posting a link to the discussion of the deletion [1]. That's if you call threatening to ignore the AFD and recreating the page as a discussion of course. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    - Well, that suggests a possible resolution to this. The finding was that Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool was insufficiently notable for a standalone article. I don't see why the nominator shouldn't create a new section of From Software called Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool. That would bring the outcome into accordance with WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, which the debate participants, for the most part, were quite wrong to disregard.
      Of course, any unsourced content in the new section would be subject to removal, so I'd suggest keeping the new section short and factual.—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
      I should probably point out that the topic is already covered in micro form on the King's Field (series) page. Which based on my experience seems like a much more appropriate place to be covered as such than on the From Software page. That's fine for a snippet/summary, main article template I think, but the subject matter is wholly inappropriate in other than summary form on either page IMO --Truth Glass (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just keep this meta crap coming guys

I as a person with stuff to do can't really trawl thru/address all of this. But I think it splendidly highlights the wrong-headedness of the entire notability-alone paradigm. Neither does it address the fact that the topic is clearly notable, it just happens to be a decade old, and from Japan, and surprise surprise has few modern day online sources (even though it does have plenty... I'm not sure why 2 or 3 are not enough) from the corporate product angle. I think this is more interesting as a hot button issue example at this point. I'm not sure how many articles that fail notability are so clearly totally topical / relevant to the general public, but this is a prime example of just such a page. And I intend to organize around this in order to repair what I see as a major liability in terms of Wikipedia's usefulness to the general public.

There needs to be a cost benefit analysis of why all of this hot air is so helpful to Wikipedia or anyone. And why is Wikipedia so antithetical to basic information being available to the public. The harder the information is to come by, all there more reason there should be a basic record in the public commons. And if no one disagrees with the content then there should be no need to event trouble from thin air. Neither does it make sense to abuse the From Software page by putting this content on that page. No other From Software products are given an in depth (or otherwise) treatment on that page. There are already tons of meta pages now surrounding this product, so saying there can't be one actual page for the project itself is just perverse to the extreme. Seriously the world is really going to think Wikipedia is infested with perverts once this is fully publicized. Great job. --Truth Glass (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm somewhat disappointed because this process seems to have just attracted all of the same characters from the deletion process, where it should be a simple review where leveler (more senior) heads without a vested interest in the subject matter (and more of a vested interest in Wikipedia) can prevail. There's really no point to two AfDs! Just more meta pages. --Truth Glass (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules out of my great respect for Wikipedia. I will take this case up in the village pump or whatever however things go next thing. Because I think this is a really useful example of where the guidelines could use a lot of work, and how ideological extremists can easily take things too far. Kind of like the US gov't is looking really dysfunctional right now, I worry very much about the same kind of necrosis of Wikipedia bureaucracy.--Truth Glass (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also WP:OBTOP and WP:Obscure. I think these actually apply in this case at this point in time in some way. This seems to be anyway the grounds on which the deletion proponents are arguing. Because otherwise their arguments don't hold water. I frankly see this as deletion as sport. --Truth Glass (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. Actually, I think this an excellent example of the way Wikipedia guidelines are supposed to work. The only actual 3rd party source is the brief note in www.rpgamer.com, & a reference like that is not usually enough. However, I do not think the original AfD closing would prohibit a redirect to the article on the publisher, without undeleting the article contents. . The contributor's basic argument is not notability, but that " many articles that fail notability are so clearly totally topical / relevant to the general public, but this is a prime example of just such a page. And I intend to organize around this in order to repair what I see as a major liability in terms of Wikipedia's usefulness to the general public."

There are two ways in which Wikipedia might be useful to the general public: one is an encyclopedia, the other is as a directory. We chose one route; there is nothing wrong with the other, but we do not do it. The argument is furthermore wrong as to benefit to the public, at least for this sort of subject. . Material about the program is easily reachable from the publishers website, and is fully indexed on Google. Even using the general search term "Sword of Midnight" it's the 5th reference. Google is a directory, and a very good one. It does all a directory should do, which is lead to information. The added benefit of having an article in Wikipedia could be twofold: one is the greater accuracy of our articles than what is typically found on the subject's own websites, and the other is the greater publicity. The first would be entirely compromised if we had an article, since the contents of the article would need to be almost totally dependent on the publisher's website. As for the second, being used for publicity is destructive of reliability. Nobody trusts an advertisement or a press release. Some people think I'm a rather inclusively-inclined admin, but I've deleted thousands of attempted article like this. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, a traditional Encyclopedia is a directory. It's not organized based on notability. It has a well defined scope, but one topic flows to the next. Secondly Wikipedia is a paperless resource. Thirdly this subject is not a well understood subject, because there are no websites that cover the subject in a comprehensive way. Fourth, essentially it's like a video game. People expect to be able to find information about high profile video games on Wikipedia. If you go around telling people they can't find this kind of information, then people will dismiss the utility of Wikipedia. There should be a cost benefit analysis behind the course of the Wikipedia project. Especially if it requires support from, you know, the human race. Private websites are not sites that anyone can edit. They are the opposite of reliable, because they don't allow for open consensus. The scope of this product has more to do with what people have done with it, and will do with it, then what it itself is. In other words, it is more than the sum of its parts.

It makes games. The games it makes are based on the game which happens to be the first modern 3D video game in the mold we think of them today (as in ever produced) and it's a very well liked game property, considered by many to be the best (as in the best) trilogy of 3D games to this day. It's the number one game associated with the company that developed the software. It was the first and the basis for the company's identity. Like Mario or Donkey Kong is to Nintendo. This makes it probably the most interesting thing the company has ever done, and probably will ever do. And a considerable component of the company's history. The software itself, like its namesake, is also a first on more than one account. All of these factors combine to illustrate by all measures of basic/good/common/whatever sense/decency, this belongs in an Encyclopedia that covers such things at all. And if it does not belong, therefore probably at least 40% of Wikipedia's coverage of pop culture products could/should be deleted, micro claims to a fig leaf of notability aside wherever that exists. I'm sure there are people who would welcome gutting Wikipedia so. But you have to ask yourself to what good is all of this? To me the answer is clear. There is nothing good here to speak of.

Like I say, it is a good argument for why there needs to be something beyond the Notability acid test if it must be applied so stringently and indiscriminately. The guidelines may do much more good than harm, and I agree with the spirit 100%, except anything taken to extreme is detrimental and corrosive and in this case counter productive. If anything quick and easy there should be a recognizing of borderline cases and an erring on the side of inclusion. This is a case study either way as far as I am concerned. If it is a cause for deletion, then its a poster child of exactly what can be, but should not be deleted.--Truth Glass (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought, sources are only useful where there is a dispute. If a topic can reasonably be shown to have happened / exist, then there is no need for sources at all. In this case you can simply download the software if there is any doubt. There are plenty of markers of its existence throughout the discussions generated so far. If something is non controversial, as a commercial product, then you can bet if fabricated out of whole cloth, a dispute will arise. Otherwise there should be no requirement of verifiability much less notability. That's simply a form of ignorance. --Truth Glass (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but it is the inevitable result of Wikipedia's core policy of No Original Research. We need sources because otherwise we'd have to so the research ourselves and that is also a no-no. There is nothing about Wikipedia editors (who could be anybody) that makes them reliable or competent (or even necessarily honest). On the other hand, we can vet sources to see that they are reliable. See our policy on reliable sources. Thus, our basic notability standard of multiple, reliable, independent sources ensures that others have noted a topic and we don't have to so the basic research ourselves. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  - More food for thought, don't bludgeon your point, Truth Glass. We know you take issue with WP:N and, it appears, WP:V in this case. There's no need to respond to every editor repeating these points. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Retrieved from "http://en.swordofmoonlight.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_Moonlight/Wikipedia:DRV&oldid=579"

Categories:

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~      -->
-====[[:Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool]]====
+====[[:Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool]] (closed)====
+{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
+|-
+! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
+* '''[[:Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool]]''' – Decision endorsed – [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC) <!--*-->
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|-
+| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 :{{DRV links|Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sword_of_Moonlight:_King%27s_Field_Making_Tool|article=}}
 Admin deletor did not wish to discuss deletion. Suggested DRV, which is something I might add that does not appear in the prod/AfD/deleted page templates at all. Would be very helpful to newcomers and admins alike if it did!!
@@ Line 47: / Line 55: @@
 ***Note for those uninterested in trawling through my talk page archives just posting a link to the discussion of the deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spartaz/Archive15#Sword_of_Moonlight:_King.27s_Field_Making_Tool]. That's if you call threatening to ignore the AFD and recreating the page as a discussion of course. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 13:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 ****Well, that suggests a possible resolution to this.  The finding was that Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool was insufficiently notable for a standalone article.  I don't see why the nominator shouldn't create a new section of [[From Software]] called Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool.  That would bring the outcome into accordance with [[WP:BEFORE]] and [[WP:ATD]], which the debate participants, for the most part, were quite wrong to disregard.<p>Of course, any unsourced content in the new section would be subject to removal, so I'd suggest keeping the new section short and factual.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
+****:I should probably point out that the topic is already covered in micro form on the [[King's Field (series)]] page. Which based on my experience seems like a much more appropriate place to be covered as such than on the [[From Software]] page. That's fine for a snippet/summary, main article template I think, but the subject matter is wholly inappropriate in other than summary form on either page IMO --[[User:Truth Glass|Truth Glass]] ([[User talk:Truth Glass|talk]]) 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Just keep this meta crap coming guys'''
@@ Line 58: / Line 67: @@
 *'''Also''' [[WP:OBTOP]] and [[WP:Obscure]]. I think these actually apply in this case at this point in time in some way. This seems to be anyway the grounds on which the deletion proponents are arguing. Because otherwise their arguments don't hold water. I frankly see this as deletion as sport. --[[User:Truth Glass|Truth Glass]] ([[User talk:Truth Glass|talk]]) 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Endorse deletion'''. Actually, I think this an excellent example of the way Wikipedia guidelines are supposed to work. The only actual 3rd party source is the brief note in www.rpgamer.com, & a reference like that is not usually enough.  However, I do not think the original  AfD closing would prohibit a redirect to the article on the publisher, without undeleting the article contents. .  The contributor's basic argument is not  notability, but that " many articles that fail notability are so clearly totally topical / relevant to the general public, but this is a prime example of just such a page. And I intend to organize around this in order to repair what I see as a major liability in terms of Wikipedia's usefulness to the general public."
+:There are two ways in which  Wikipedia might be useful to the general public: one is an  encyclopedia, the other is as a directory. We chose one route; there is nothing wrong with the other, but we do not do it. The argument is furthermore wrong as to benefit to the public, at least for   this sort of subject. . Material about the program  is easily reachable from the publishers website, and is fully indexed on Google. Even using the general search term "Sword of Midnight" it's the 5th reference. Google is a directory, and a very good one. It does all a directory should do, which is lead to information. The added benefit of having an article in Wikipedia could be twofold: one is the greater accuracy of our articles than what is typically found on the subject's own websites, and the other is the greater publicity. The first would be entirely compromised if we had an article, since the contents of the article  would need to be almost totally dependent on the publisher's website. As for the second, being used for publicity is destructive of reliability. Nobody trusts an advertisement or a press release. Some people think I'm a rather inclusively-inclined admin, but I've deleted thousands of attempted article like this.   '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
+::First of all, a traditional Encyclopedia is a directory. It's not organized based on notability. It has a well defined scope, but one topic flows to the next. Secondly Wikipedia is a paperless resource. Thirdly this subject is not a well understood subject, because there are no websites that cover the subject in a comprehensive way. Fourth, essentially it's like a video game. People expect to be able to find information about high profile video games on Wikipedia. If you go around telling people they can't find this kind of information, then people will dismiss the utility of Wikipedia. There should be a cost benefit analysis behind the course of the Wikipedia project. Especially if it requires support from, you know, the human race. Private websites are not sites that anyone can edit. They are the opposite of reliable, because they don't allow for open consensus. The scope of this product has more to do with what people have done with it, and will do with it, then what it itself is. In other words, it is more than the sum of its parts.
+::It makes games. The games it makes are based on the game which happens to be the first modern 3D video game in the mold we think of them today (as in ever produced) and it's a very well liked game property, considered by many to be the best (as in the best) trilogy of 3D games to this day. It's the number one game associated with the company that developed the software. It was the first and the basis for the company's identity. Like Mario or Donkey Kong is to Nintendo. This makes it probably the most interesting thing the company has ever done, and probably will ever do. And a considerable component of the company's history. The software itself, like its namesake, is also a first on more than one account. All of these factors combine to illustrate by all measures of basic/good/common/whatever sense/decency, this belongs in an Encyclopedia that covers such things at all. And if it does not belong, therefore probably at least 40% of Wikipedia's coverage of pop culture products could/should be deleted, micro claims to a fig leaf of notability aside wherever that exists. I'm sure there are people who would welcome gutting Wikipedia so. But you have to ask yourself to what good is all of this? To me the answer is clear. There is nothing good here to speak of.
+::Like I say, it is a good argument for why there needs to be something beyond the Notability acid test if it must be applied so stringently and indiscriminately. The guidelines may do much more good than harm, and I agree with the spirit 100%, except anything taken to extreme is detrimental and corrosive and in this case counter productive. If anything quick and easy there should be a recognizing of borderline cases and an erring on the side of inclusion. This is a case study either way as far as I am concerned. If it is a cause for deletion, then its a poster child of exactly what can be, but should not be deleted.--[[User:Truth Glass|Truth Glass]] ([[User talk:Truth Glass|talk]]) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Food for thought''', sources are only useful where there is a dispute. If a topic can reasonably be shown to have happened / exist, then there is no need for sources at all. In this case you can simply download the software if there is any doubt. There are plenty of markers of its existence throughout the discussions generated so far. If something is non controversial, as a commercial product, then you can bet if fabricated out of whole cloth, a dispute will arise. Otherwise there should be no requirement of verifiability much less notability. That's simply a form of ignorance. --[[User:Truth Glass|Truth Glass]] ([[User talk:Truth Glass|talk]]) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
+**Perhaps, but it is the inevitable result of Wikipedia's core policy of [[WP:NOR|No Original Research]].  We need sources because otherwise we'd have to so the research ourselves and that is also a no-no.  There is nothing about Wikipedia editors (who could be anybody) that makes them reliable or competent (or even necessarily honest).  On the other hand, we can vet sources to see that they are reliable.  See [[WP:RS|our policy on reliable sources]].  Thus, our basic notability standard of multiple, reliable, independent sources ensures that others have noted a topic and we don't have to so the basic research ourselves.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 06:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
+***'''More food for thought''', don't [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeon your point]], Truth Glass.  We know you take issue with [[WP:N]] and, it appears, [[WP:V]] in this case.  There's no need to respond to every editor repeating these points. [[User:I Jethrobot|<font color="green" face="Corbel"><b>I, Jethrobot</b></font>]][[User talk:I Jethrobot| <sup>drop me a line</sup>]] <small>(note: not a [[WP:BOT|bot]]!)</small> 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|}
+[[Category:Sword of Moonlight]]
+[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia:DRV

From Wiki

Revision as of 05:57, 11 August 2011

2 August 2011

Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool (closed)

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Tools