Wikipedia:DRV

2 August 2011

Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool

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)

• 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)