So, the SRB2 Wikipedia article

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BlazeHedgehog

Member
The SRB2 Wikipedia article, for no discernable reason other than "It's a fangame", has been suggested for Deletion by "InShaneee". Yesterday, she put up "Article For Deletion" headers on both SRB2 and Time Attacked, but after a bit of reading it said it was okay to remove them if I felt the need to (if they aren't removed after 5 days, the article is deleted).

Directly afterwards, she slapped an altered version back up on SRB2's page, directing people not to remove it until discussion on whether or not it should be deleted has come to a close.

So, hey. If you give a crap about the Wikipedia entry (and you should, there's quite a lot of information on it), now would be the time to speak up and/or edit the SRB2 article to give the Wikipedians a better reason not to remove it.
 
It's normal on Wikipedia for someone who knows nothing about the subject matter to try and remove fangame articles as fancruft. Considering 99% of fangames suck or are non-notable, it's normal to do that, as most all of the time, the targetted articles ARE fancruft and should be deleted. All you have to do to stop them from deleting it is to simply go vote on the articles for deletion section. Add a comment saying "Keep", and then explain your reason for considering the fangame as notable. Then sign your comment, by typing -~~~~.

This shouldn't surprise anyone, just take the action needed to fix the problem and it'll resolve itself just fine.
 
Added why I should keep it:
Keep. Most definetly keep it. This project has scaled to monstrous porportions, and this page helps to keep that alive. We also have the right to brag that we get more google bots than ANY other sonic fangame, which shows popularity right there. =P -Spazzo
Click to expand...
 
Reading the Wikipedia Info on deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Sockpuppeting_is_not_to_be_tolerated

One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process. A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my vanity article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism. Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets plied in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.
Click to expand...

*shot*
 
There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason.
Click to expand...

And I would say that saving an article of the only released Sonic game (Can't remember where I read this) with netplay is a good reason.
 
Re: Reading the Wikipedia Info on deletion

AlamGBC said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Sockpuppeting_is_not_to_be_tolerated

One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process. A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my vanity article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism. Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets plied in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.
Click to expand...

*shot*
Click to expand...

Huh. Well, crap.
 
Yeah, I agree that sock puppetting is idiotic, however, this is more along the lines of people coming to arms defending an article that frankly, deserves to be improved, not deleted. The article sucks, no question, however, it's popular enough to deserve an article.

Besides, these are real people. Several of which with Wikipedia articles that contribute. Personally, I think the consistancy of it is more important than the source, because if a bunch of people who just got there and a bunch of people who have already been there for some time all offer the same opinion, that's just as fine as just a bunch of people already there offering the opinion. No one except the person who offered it up for deletion wants it deleted, so this shouldn't shock anyone.

I'll note that I prowl a few Wikipedia articles, and I knew about him trying before this was even posted. I assume he didn't attempt to delete Time Attacked because it already had one of these attempts before, and he looked at the history and saw a clear point that Time Attacked was really notable. We simply need one of those in our history, as SRB2 is much more popular than Time Attacked.
 
Makes me feel rather good about the MarioWeen article. I felt it might've been egotistical to list where all it was featured (magazines, etc), but now I realize it might stave off people who want to delete it. =P
 
No, personally I think a valid article is whether or not there is interest in the subject material and whether or not it is notable on an encyclopedia. SRB2 has a lot of interest and is definitely notable. The morons flooding my inbox prove it X_X
 
If SRB2 is so big, why not make a SRB2 Wiki? I think it's kind of stupid to hear you guys argue over a Wikipedia article and take it so seriously. Maybe I'm just not into SRB2 as much as you guys. :/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Back
Top