Seven Day Roguelike entry up for deletion in Wikipedia

[DisaffectedBeta]

I'm never quite sure how Wikipedia works, but apparently someone is trying to delete the current entry because it apparently has no verifiable sources.  Why they'd pick on a small stub like that I don't know, I guess there aren't enough people to try to get the deletion notice removed, even though some unsourced fanboy entries in wikipedia that manage to resist deletion are relatively horrible.

If anyone knows how to reverse this process, and wants to, I guess now would be the time.

[Rabiat]

I'm afraid it's a lost cause. This Man in Black character is a moderator and appears to be quite the pedantic edit warring bureaucrat.

But why is there a 7DRL page in the first place? Doesn't seem like subject that would receive a lot of attention, and I think that if people were interested, they'd assume it's too obscure a subject to be on Wikipedia anyway.

[DisaffectedBeta]

Maybe it needs to be merged with another entry to increase its survivability, then?  I don't think a subject's obscurity makes it worth deleting.  Roguelike itself seems like a more robust entry, and could possibly just have a little add-on that talked about contests.  I dunno, I rarely dip my pinkie in that wiki trough, myself.

[Rabiat]

See this page. Main argument for deletion is that "Nobody has ever seen fit to comment on this particular subject in reliable sources". However condescending, he's got a point. It seems you can add comments to that page if you want to prevent deletion. Someone else has also suggested merging it with a bigger subject. But who needs Wikipedia? ;)

(BTW I don't understand how they got 68 hits on google for "seven day roguelike"; I'm getting 700.)

[Zeb]

I gave it a shot. (My Username is The_suicide_forest)

If everyone with an established Wikipedia account pitches in with well-thought-out arguements, we have a very good chance of at least reaching "No consensus".

[Rabiat]

Wikipedians don't take too kindly to meatpuppets. ;)

You made a good point though, Zeb. Still I don't believe these guys are going to be convinced about how this article meets their Absolute and Non-negotiable Law of Notability (WP:N!). :p

[DisaffectedBeta]

Wikipedia seems goofier every time I learn more about it.  I've seen rather large, unattributed articles that are completely ignored.  Read one yesterday, even.  This nitpicking seems strangely inefficient.  They discourage meat puppets, but technically there's nothing wrong with it since it's bringing in other people to debate an issue.  It's utterly fascinating.

[DaEezT]

They discourage meat puppets, but technically there's nothing wrong with it since it's bringing in other people to debate an issue.  It's utterly fascinating.

Well said :p

[DisaffectedBeta]

Sarcasm?

[DaEezT]

Nope.
I completely agree with what you said and how you said it. Others would have wasted 2 pages to state the same.

[Zeb]

Wikipedians don't take too kindly to meatpuppets. ;)

Thanks for the heads up, I forgot about WP:MEAT. >_<

I tried looking through that "A Man In Bl♟ck " guy's  edit history, I find it interesting that almost nothing he's done in his last 500 edits meets WP:N. I thought about pointing that out, but it's not all that relevant and pointing out the hypocrisies an Admin is a pretty bad idea (as I learned in the Encyclopedia Dramatica debacle) Meanwhile, I plan to keep arguing. Deleting the 7DRL article seems absolutely silly to me.

[DisaffectedBeta]

Cheers then, DaEezT.  I was probably defensive because I felt I could have written it better.

You're right not to do that, Rabiat.  Ad hominem attacks don't go anywhere on a reasonable forum.  Sticking to the issue is best, even when the admin is playing inquisitor.

I've avoided taking up an account many times with wikipedia because I felt like it was a wasted effort.  The misattributed or misstated quotes are the ones that really get to me, because that just illustrates sloppy research, but I felt that if anyone wanted to really look up information on a topic, they might, at best, use the dread Wiki as a stepping stone to actually learning about something, as I usually do, instead of treating it as the final step.  Unfortunately, though, we tend not to have time to do full research on a given topic, and human beings are rumor-animals at times, making something that SOUNDS like knowledge become knowledge.  Even when you find out later that a fact you'd heard through the grapevine is false, it's hard to dislodge it from the brain.

I think editorial authority is something too important to ever be phased out, which is why I can't take wiki as seriously as I think its founders would like it to be taken, although I admit I use it quite a bit.

[Rabiat]

This nitpicking seems strangely inefficient.

Just think about the amount of effort and frustration that goes into writing, revising, criticizing and debating these articles. Most of it is simply lost. "Goofy" is the right word. :)

Thanks for the heads up, I forgot about WP:MEAT. >_<

These Wikipedia acronyms are ironically funny. And at times their lingo is hilarious.

You seem to be holding your own just fine in that mess though. :)

I think editorial authority is something too important to ever be phased out, which is why I can't take wiki as seriously as I think its founders would like it to be taken, although I admit I use it quite a bit.

Actually Wikipedia is a very valuable source of information about subjects you don't know that much about. What I find disturbing about Wikipedia is that new contributors are often scared away by some self-appointed authorities, who don't necessarily know anything about the subject, but nevertheless don't hesitate to subject new users to arbitrary rules or formalities: "this is not a suitable subject for Wikipedia because WP:N, WP:POV, WP:A-to-D and WP:XYZZY, so it's got to go. Bye."

[DisaffectedBeta]

They are drunk...  on WIKI POWER!!

[Zeb]

Not related to this topic, but one thing I noticed about Wikipedia is that a lot of people complain (rightly so) about everyone doing pointless articles instead of important ones. I think the reason for this is that every time you try to edit an article with any actual encyclopedic value, it gets reverted by anti-vandals and you have to spend a week in a ****ing internet war just to get your two sentences added. It's waaaaaaaaaay more trouble than it's worth for the contributor. For example, a few months ago I tried adding a paragraph to the "balloon" article about hazards to marine mammals. It sparked a massive edit war that went on for weeks involving about 20 people (~10 to each side) and eventually was solved (I thought) by an admin that let my paragraph stay. I just checked the article though, and my paragraph is gone now. THAT, I think, is inefficiency at it most...uh, inefficient.