Wikipedia:DRV

From Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
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>}} ~~~~      -->
 
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=}}
 
:{{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!!
 
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)
 
***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)
 
****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'''
 
*'''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)
 
*'''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]]

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)