Well....two things here: (don't get me wrong, I don't want to see this deleted, it just needs to be redone I think) One, its a guide for HL2 weapons only....not HL2 itself. Either way, the guide for empires doesn't cover much information in depth. Its mostly consisted of 1 sentance descriptions of the gun, building or whatever it might be. I think something regarding version history, upcoming additions, storyline and such deserve more details, rather than describing every gun in a sentance. About the guy mentioning the sudden number of users joining: He's right to an extent - I think the thread should not be centered on spamming "keep" messages, but rather working to improve it...add more data, clean up the current info. I'd dig up my ancient wikipedia account and post....but knighttemplar said exactly what I would have said.
My motivation for starting the thread was because of their claim that Empires was not notable enough to have an article. It's definitely going to be "not notable" to a bunch of regular wikipedia editors who don't play mods. How else were we to prove that Empires is "notable" besides getting comments from those of the community who actually know what the mod is. It's silly the way they're going about it, and "spam drive" is no way to describe my original post. Does it even say anywhere in wikipedia's guidelines what makes a subject "notable" enough to warrant an article? If they would have just left the whole "not notable" part of their argument out of the discussion, we could've focused on what seems to be the real issue: the article's content. Then again, normally they post a header at the top recommending the article is improved instead of going straight to nominating it for deletion. The person who nominated it for deletion went about this all wrong.
If shit would hit the fan, is there a possibility of adding an article about this mod later on or will the doors be closed for an Empires article forever? What I mean is, if this article gets deleted, is there still a possibility of adding a better one in? Since Empires is a notable mod(just look at the downloads, the awards and articles and features lists) the only reason for deletion would be the form of the article and that brings us to the point Krenzo brought up. Wikipedia has been criticized before for misuse in administrative powers, I think we are witnessing one of these acts. Just look at the profile of this cheerful chap who marked this article for deletion. He is proud of the fact that he has deleted so much stuff from Wikipedia for gods sake. This alone fights against my philosophy on written information. If there's wrong information, it should be corrected not deleted.
Exactly. What qualifies as "not-notable" anyway? Surely it's just a matter of personal interest. IMO it doesn't matter how insignificant the information may appear to oneself (not that Empires is insignificant in the slightest), other people still have the right of access to that information. It does seem like a terrible abuse of power.
I suppose if it's deleted, it can be created again, but what's to stop it from being deleted over and over? If they establish that the whole reason for deleting it is because it's "non-notable," then no matter how well a replacement article is written, it will be deleted due to the subject matter.
How can someone tell a mod-in-progress that its not notable enough? Of course its not notable yet because its not fully finished. They want us to wave awards and articles in front of them, but theres no reason why we should have to. I do think that the article needs to be cleaned up. Maybe if someone would make it look a little nicer, it wouldn't look so deletable.
Don't forget that if you have a decent point, email it to any of the people why have voted to delete the page. don't forget to include an obvious link at the bottom of the email to the Keep / Delete page, so all they have to do is easily follow the link and change their opinion. few of my ideas: Not Notable? This is a single page outlining the knowledge needed to perform a function, ie, play the game. as Wikipedia is a knowledge base, it should provide wikipedia has thousands of articles that serve little purpose other than to give a little more information on a topic or idea. here's one utterly pointless example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nude_on_the_Moon. (this one was actually created / edited by one of the people that was against our wiki). yet our wiki is vitally needed for hundreds of people to learn how to play. furthermore, the mod is evidently prominent: the forum alone has more than 650 members, more of which join each day.
Why is the kinslayer putting "Comment - The above is the only contribution by x" is he an admin or just being a prick?
"Non-notable game mod. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Doesn't seem to be written about by any reliable independent sources, at least, not in a non-trivial way. (Wow triple negative, go me!). Anyways, delete for lack of verifiability without OR. Wickethewok 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)" His reasons are dumb, the article was written before, not exactly like that, but still with the same info. And he appears to be a Star Wars addict who doesn't cares about other games. He also thinks he's doing what's best for Wikipedia, while deleting information is a bad thing for Wikipedia. Also, he appears to be an administrator for the english Wikipedia, i think he's either faking or given the right due to "lucky hits" with deleting pages. Here's a fragment out of his talk page: I've included an article about my band Sarkasm but it was deemed not imortant enough by you. Can you please let me know what are your criterias? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fdubuc (talk • contribs) . Criteria for bands are listed at WP:BAND. It is always a bad idea to write about yourself or people you know directly (see WP:AUTO). Wickethewok 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) He thinks he's god? Hi, I added a line about the popularity of the mod along with a link to Valves official list for reference, as per the AfD. I was wondering if you could suggest any other changes you think should be made to the article? Thanks, The Kinslayer 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Hmm, maybe some footnotes or something in the gameplay section to say where the information came from. Right now there's a bunch of info there, but you can't really tell where it comes from (I assume from the NS website, but I could be wrong). Also, there's still some POV/OR stuff in there about what typically happens in games (camping, strategies, techniques) - this information should probably either be cited or removed. Also, pretty much almost any information from other outside reliable references would be great and most likely usable in the article. Wickethewok 173, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Another quote from his talk page, it looks like he's a trigger happy wannabe god for sure, maybe we should report him?
From what I can tell, they're putting that to discredit your comments by saying that you just came to wikipedia to post the comment and that's it. They seem to be basing that solely on whether you've created a page about yourself (the guy comments about red names meaning they don't link to an article about yourself). That's a joke. Who would add an article about themselves on wikipedia? If you'll look, the admins there take their own pages very seriously. They have tons of information about what they've done for wikipedia. I basically replied to the guy's comment about me not having contributed and told him to check the article's history and discussion page for proof that I've contributed. I doubt that will help. I looked at all the crap about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it says after five days, another admin will come around and review all the comments and make a final decision. It's probably going to be another high on their horse admin who will skip over all comments from those with the dreaded red names.
All you need to do is write something about yourself in your profile, it'll look like blue rather than red.
I love the Empires Community =) we all pwn. Also I think that wicket guy was very rude with that FYI.
I'd go as far as to say that he is discriminating against new users. Isn't there a rule against that on Wikipedia? They keep repeating the same "non notable" nonsense, even though Krenzo added the appropriate links proving them wrong. Besides, none of these people are in any way shape or form qualified to pass that judgement. This whole thing stinks of admin abuse.
I have lost my faith in wikipedia. The administratorship seems to be full of self-righterous fools on their high horses. Elitistic bastards that have no respect for information... What's the use of having a free encyclopedia, if it's run by people who only care how long their e-penis is(even when they're women). If you take an objective look at the conversation it looks like every argument posted by a new user is ignored, even though their points are valid. It's a very immature compilation of elitistic BS. Take a look at this part in the nomination line: "(Wow triple negative, go me!)". If this is supposed to be a serious conversation about a serious subject then what in the name of hell do this kind of remarks do there? Wikipedia, free and open encyclopedia where people can ADD information. It sounds like a bad joke to me now... "Oh you don't like pokémon? You're not welcome to post your articles here, if you do our collective will make sure it gets deleted no matter what. We'll even invent new reasons for deletion, if you somehow manage to prove the original ones wrong! Shoo! This is our playground." Mostly ranting here because I used to believe that Wikipedia was a good thing where information could flourish. When I heard the first rumors about the quality of wikipedia moderatorship and admin abuse I didn't believe it, now after seeing it first hand... I have to. Goddamn corruption of stupidity everywhere.
Well, there is still the dedicated empires wiki. And I'm sure that the success of this mod will not rest on whether it has a wikipedia article or not. There are far more appropriate sites to advertise on if you want to recruit a player base. So basically, if they want to delete it, then stuff them. We know they are in the wrong, but getting stressed over it doesn't do anyone any good.
I won't be crying over the deletion, it's just sad that they make wrong assumptions and decisions. The non-notable statement is unmeasurable and debunked, the verifiabity and reliable sources are good (just missing). There is no reason at all to delete it and I'm quite surprised why it wasn't stubbed first. However, the wiki article itself is pretty crappy and way too specific. It really needs a good rewrite.
