A couple of Wikipedia articles up for deletion

[samiam]

I'm just letting people know that a couple of Doom-editing related articles are up for deletion.

Doom Builder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doom_Builder

And I think Slige is going to be put on the block for possible deletion this week sometime (Someone tried quickly deleting it; I just blocked that and it will probably get the "vote for deletion" treatment this week sometime)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slige

So, if anyone is a Wikipedia editor, they may wish to share their opinion about these articles.

- Sam

[Steeveeo]

I posted a Keep on the DB article.

[myk]

How can they ask for sources for a stub, when the object of the stub is freely accessible for checking through the link provided?

[Steeveeo]

myk said:

How can they ask for sources for a stub, when the object of the stub is freely accessible for checking through the link provided?

Simple, the average IQ of the population of the world is dropping, wasnt there a movie about that? :P

[fraggle]

Voted delete. They aren't worthy of Wikipedia articles. This is what we have the Doom Wiki for.

[myk]

Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.

[printz]

I don't quite get it. Why delete potentially useful information, when it could stay there and delight the bored Internet navigators? Err, limited wiki space? Doom Builder and Slige exist and are being used (DB, especially). Or are "niche" objects (like Doom Builder and Slige because they address Doom, an old game with devoted players) discouraged from "publicity" on Wikipedia?

[John Smith]

Delete, same reason as fraggle. Doom has a wiki for this very reason folks.

[CodeImp]

Thanks for the Keep posts guys, appreciated, but I have to agree with fraggle, this article is not worth being in an encyclopedia. If you want, it is better to link to the Doom Builder article at the Doom Wiki at the pages you need a reference to it.

[myk]

If it's deleted I don't mind at all (that's hinted in my comment); my main concern was raising the bar on the arguments being given, like giving an accused subject a fair trial. Drat's reasons were (or still are) rather skeletal as I noted*, and it felt that the initiative for deletion was also possibly biased (to delete community based stuff without consideration). The argument about having the Doom Wiki for that is reasonable, and it's also a matter of whether the existing stub can really be expanded and in a way that fits the Wikipedia.

* Wikipedians sometimes just fling rules, standards and customs when the Wikipedia also encourages "ignoring rules" when common sense and good reasons play a part.

[ellmo]

What if someone wants to check those names, not knowing they relate to anything about Doom?

I don't really think it hurts to have additional entries in the wikipedia, as long as they are proper.

[myk]

ellmo said:
What if someone wants to check those names, not knowing they relate to anything about Doom?

It's already mentioned in a couple of articles, so searches including the terms should list those articles on top (or go to the more appropriate one if the Go button is used).

[Reckoner]

ellmo said:

What if someone wants to check those names, not knowing they relate to anything about Doom?

A simple search on Google for "Doom Builder" (with or without quotes) will produce the Doom Builder website as the first result and the Doom Wiki article only a little further down the page.

Wikipedia, like many other encyclopedias, is meant to hold information on notable topics rather than serving as a storage bin for any random knowledge. Doom is a notable game, but Doom Builder is not a notable program unless it is viewed in the context of the Doom community. Given this, it probably makes the most sense to mention map editors and editing in the main Doom article rather than having a separate article just for Doom Builder.

[ellmo]

Reckoner said:

A simple search on Google for "Doom Builder" (with or without quotes) will produce the Doom Builder website as the first result and the Doom Wiki article only a little further down the page.

I know that. What about other terms? Something less obvious.

myk said:

It's already mentioned in a couple of articles, so searches including the terms should list those articles on top (or go to the more appropriate one if the Go button is used).

That's a convincing argument. Didn't think about it.

[Reckoner]

ellmo said:

I know that. What about other terms? Something less obvious.

Such as? The only time someone would have trouble finding information on a Doom term without explicitly mentioning Doom in their search is if the term is used commonly outside of Doom (e.g., "wad" is a common English word, as is "sector" and "imp") or if the term is used infrequently even within the community, but even then if he or she was looking for just the Doom-specific information there is usually always some known contextual information that could narrow down the results (e.g., even if the user doesn't know that a term originates from Doom, he or she may know that the term originates from some video game, in which case "video game" might be a good search term to add).

[Nuxius]

I have to agree that the article should be deleted, or at least merged with the Editors section of Wikipedia's Doom WAD page.

ellmo said:

I know that. What about other terms? Something less obvious.

Well, at the time of this post, a Google search for "doom editor", "doom level editor", "doom level editing program" and "doom wad editor" all produce the Doom Builder website as the first result, so I very much doubt anyone would have trouble finding it.

[fraggle]

ellmo said:

What if someone wants to check those names, not knowing they relate to anything about Doom?

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.

[samiam]

I'm glad people in the Doom community have expressed their opinions on this subject. I would be OK with a merge with an article talking about editing wad files; maybe add a link to the Doom Builder page and the Doom Wiki doom builder article.

Personally, I don't like the Wiki community; from where I stand, it looks like a bunch of control freaks engaging in pathetic wars to try and control the Wiki. I think people are much better off with the Citizendium:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page

[Xeriphas1994]

samiam, thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention.  Myself, I completely agree with Fraggle, and I suggested redirecting to the "Doom WAD" article (the names of individual source ports already redirect to the "Doom source port" article).  Depending on what general principles are cited by the person closing the debate, I may nominate every article about an editor for similar treatment (I forget how many there are).

Personally, I don't like the Wiki community; from where I stand, it looks like a bunch of control freaks engaging in pathetic wars to try and control the Wiki.

* shrug *    Wikipedia is now the same size as a small country, and no country is without its political issues.

[Xeriphas1994]

myk said:

How can they ask for sources for a stub, when the object of the stub is freely accessible for checking through the link provided?

They're not asking for sources to establish that it exists.  They're asking for sources to establish that it's already been written about in "reliable" media. [1] [2]

[myk]

Xeriphas1994 said:
They're asking for sources to establish that it's already been written about in "reliable" media.

That wasn't necessarily clear, and while that's the main sort of source that would allow the article to be expanded in the Wikipedia, first it is better to determine whether there's some suitable source available, rather than if it's present in the stub (where you don't normally expect much reference yet), and if there are any alternatives to deletion for the submission.

[fraggle]

samiam said:

I'm glad people in the Doom community have expressed their opinions on this subject. I would be OK with a merge with an article talking about editing wad files; maybe add a link to the Doom Builder page and the Doom Wiki doom builder article.

Personally, I don't like the Wiki community; from where I stand, it looks like a bunch of control freaks engaging in pathetic wars to try and control the Wiki. I think people are much better off with the Citizendium:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page

Citizendium is even stricter about references than Wikipedia is. I think you'll find a hard time getting articles about Doom on there.

[printz]

fraggle said:

Citizendium is even stricter about references than Wikipedia is. I think you'll find a hard time getting articles about Doom on there.

That's what he meant, that Wikipedia is too free. Damn, I really hope that Citizendium is the same as it hopes to be. But hey, a Wikipedia competitor! Unexpected, I've only noticed it now.

[Xeriphas1994]

That wasn't necessarily clear

Fair enough, and one could even argue that by definition verifiability comes before notability on Wikipedia, since the one is a policy and the other a guideline.  (The full deletion policy is like 40K anyway; I have a feeling not everybody reads it end to end before contributing.)

rather than if it's present in the stub (where you don't normally expect much reference yet)

Actually, the policy now says (see criterion A7) that articles on certain highly stratified topics, such as musicians, can be deleted without a discussion if they include no citations.  If the article's body claims notability without references, it gets nominated for deletion, so that people can discuss whether to grant the interested parties a couple of months to find some.

[Xeriphas1994]

printz said:

But hey, a Wikipedia competitor! Unexpected, I've only noticed it now.

There are a few.  Another is Infoplease.  Sites that started by copying content from Wikipedia are listed here (warning: very long page).