User talk:RadonWhoopass
|
Proposed deletion of R.P.G. Rocket Propelled Guts[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article R.P.G. Rocket Propelled Guts, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CultureDrone (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of R.P.G. Rocket Propelled Guts[edit]
I have nominated R.P.G. Rocket Propelled Guts, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.P.G. Rocket Propelled Guts. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. CultureDrone (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC) CultureDrone (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
R.P.G. Rocket Propelled Guts deletion[edit]
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. You want to know why I proposed this article for deletion - a reasonable question for a newcomer :-)
Wikipedia has never been intended as an 'encyclopedia of everything', despite some public perception of it as a collection of never-heard-of films, slurs against policitians, and personal articles by 14 year old girls who think 'Justin iz coool'. In order to retain some sort of control over the content, the organisers created a set of rules and guidelines for people adding or amending articles - these contain information not only on what should be included in an article, and guidelines on layout (so we end up with the same rough style throughout), but also guidelines on what sort of articles are suitable for inclusion. These guidelines have grown, multiplied and changed, but two of the main ones - certainly as far as your article is concerned - are notability and verifiability (if you click on either of those links, you'll see the policy/guideline). Articles which fail the criteria in these guidelines are subject to being deleted.
Firstly notability - if you look at the guideline, you'll see that the general requirement is that the " topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This usually means that the subject has been covered in magazine reviews, newspaper articles, discussions in books, mentioned on TV etc. It's basically an indication of why this particular subject is of interest to other people. Unfortunately, whilst this particular game may be a favourite of yours, there's nothing in your article that indicates that it satisfies this requirement - i.e. why other people would find it interesting. Unfortunately, the "Daily Click" isn't a sufficient means of showing notability.
Secondly, verifiability - basically proving what you've said in the article is true. I could write an article about scientists discovering that the third moon of Jupiter was made of old socks carried there by the Tooth Fairy....and people might find it interesting, but it doesn't mean it's true :-) You have to provide reliable, independent sources. For instance, saying "The first game to use this formula was a single level demo called DeathMatch Arena " - ok - tell me how you can prove this statement. It may well be true, and you were there, but Wikipedia requires proof of that.
Thirdly, you appear to be violating another guideline (yes, there are lots of them !), in regards to a conflict of interest. Writing about yourself, or about something you're closely involved with is discouraged as it's almost impossible to retain a neutral point of view - noone writing an article about something they created is going to say (for example) "it's pretty good, but I think level 3 sucks and needs improvement". There's also the possibility that you might, intentionally or not, be trying to use Wikipedia to advertise the game - which (yes, you guessed it) is against yet another policy.
All I've done is suggest that the article be deleted because it doesn't meet these guidelines - however, I don't actually 'push the delete button' - what happens is that the article is put in a list with others, and other editors review the articles and see whether they agree with the suggestion to delete it. If they don't then it stays, if they do then it (usually) gets deleted.
Please don't take it personally - I'm sure you've spent a lot of time creating the game (and the article), and it may well be a superb game. However, at the moment, your article just doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines. That doesn't mean that an article about the game can never be written here - if you can provide notability and verifiability, and get someone not connected with the game itself to write about it, then I look forward to reading it in the future.
I hope that explains the reasoning for you - if you need any clarification, just drop another message on my talk page. CultureDrone (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)