Minimaki

I must know (Seven day roguelike)

So, who are you really? I suppose as long as you are not a sock puppet for Man in Black (or someone else voting to delete 7DRL), then I assume good faith. But since you appear to have created this account just to get rid of this article, maybe you could tell me who you are. I promise to keep it to myself. Capmango 16:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm nobody really, I have one account which has a couple 100 minor edits over several years, so very inactive, and I managed to keep out of animosities so far, which is important to me and prevents using it for AdF discussions, that's it. AdFs are not polls anyway, so sock puppets shouldn't matter. If this fails WP:N (and WP:V in the sense that our sources are only from the people participating) then it should not have an article. I'm all with you that there are many articles in WP that have an article who deserves it far less than 7DRL, but by that logic, WP policies would need to change first - in AdF discussions we need to go by current policies, and it doesn't matter if they are violated elsewhere. In all honesty, it's just a small hobby we have of coding roguelikes, and there are many roguelike dev communities who do not know about 7DRL (i didn't know before i saw the WP article), and there are 1000ds of such contests held in other areas which do not have a WP entry, and rightfully so. If you manage to keep it despite not meeting the standards, that's completely fine to me. If any "proper" media will report on 7DRL in the future (doubtful), then I'd be the first to recreate and defend it pointing to such sources. But otherwise, even if it's kept now, it should get nominated over and over as long as it violates WP's policies. As of now, it just isn't notable in any broader sense, and while this may be regretful, having a WP article on it won't change the fact, it just means WP's system has failed (e.g. if Man in Black would have been on holidays, this would have been a sure KEEP). As it turned out now, it depends on the closer, delete it according to policies, or keep it to not offend those in favor to keep. --Minimaki 10:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I never made the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, that was someone else. The article clearly does not violate any wikipedia policies, if it did, I'd be the first to support deletion. There is a reason that some things are called guidelines and others are called policies. WP:V is a policy, WP:N is a guideline. A lot of people read the WP:N guideline as saying "unless multiple independent reliable sources cover topic A, topic A is not notable", but that isn't what the guideline says; it only makes the positive statement that topics covered in multiple independent reliable media are assumed to be notable. I think a lot of good, proper, important wikipedia articles are being lost to the misunderstanding of this guideline. There are a huge number of notable topics that are flat out not covered by mainstream media, usually because they are notable in a fairly narrow field. Capmango 15:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did indeed not go check what you said on the AfD page and what someone else. Anyway, to me personally, this is 20-30 people on a newsgroup, who have written some roguelike games as a hobby in the last 2 years. And without going into the details of WP's inclusion standards, this just isn't notable in any encyclopedia. The other extreme would be if you can point me to an article in Retro Gamer saying "7DRL is the thriving force of roguegame development in 2005-2007" and a mention of it in a book "The history of computer games" - then nobody would have any doubts. The truth likely is in between, but probably very close to my current personal impression - and apparently there are no sources (not on the web and not elsewhere, as has gotten clear by now) which would prove otherwise. --Minimaki 16:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not know how many people have contact with 7DRLs. I'm sure it's more than the 30 or so who have written one. It seems to be an open question on Wikipedia about how many people need to find a subject notable before it is wikinotable. Your argument implies that there is a threshold for how many people might be interested in an article before that article is worthy of inclusion. What do you think that threshold is? Capmango 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just drawing two pictures, one where I clearly say "delete", one where I'd clearly say "keep". Both times trying to interpret WP's current policies. I think I see where you are getting at with the numbers though - if the topic itself is notable, then it doesn't matter how many people are involved, so like, if 50% of all roguelikes created in 2007 are a result of 7DRL, that makes it notable within its field. But I just don't believe that, I believe it's only one small community of roguelike creators who consider themselves important, but without interest for the "outside world". --Minimaki 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a loaded statement. this is not at all about "considering myself important", and since none of the rest of the 7DRL developers are even arguing to keep the article, I think it's a stretch to say that any of us is filled with self-importance. I don't happen to think that having an article in wikipedia conveys importance. I just think wikipedia is a useful resource, and information that someone might go looking to wikipedia for ought to be there, and that 7DRL challenges fall into that category. But I don't think you caught my point anyway; I'll try again:

• Every subject known to man is notable to at least one person
• No subject known to man is notable to every single person
• Subject notable "enough" for a wikipedia article must be notable to at least 'n' people

The question is, what is the value of 'n'? Capmango 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I myself couldn't name such a number. In fact, if in 100 years, there is an article in WP nobody knows about any longer, but it fulfills WP:V and WP:N, then I would think it still is notable (even though n is 0). And conversely, there's many topics known by millions which don't deserve an entry, because for various reasons they fail WP:NOT or similar policies. --Minimaki 09:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: OS-Tan deletion

I stated "I would look to", not that I would personally - The topic is not my area of editing. However, the arguments which swayed it to keep (or at weakest, a no consensus - there was no strong consensus to delete within the discussion) was that it has been the subject of published work, press coverage and, as it is Japanese, a lack of references is probably connected to systematic bias. The article does need better referencing, but I dare say that anything which has two previous nominations is going to need a strong consensus for deletion on a third attempt - I did not see evidence that this was present. Hope this helps. Esteffect (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot. The published works seem to be irrelevant to me, as only independent work would have helped as far as I understand (i.e. not a book publishing the pictures, but a book writing about them), or some kind of review of either the book or manga by anyone outside a personal blog. Nothing like that was found by anyone. But about the systemic bias, you are right, I also had hoped for someone actually speaking Japanese confirming that no Japanese sources can be found - there's indeed some small possibility they do exist. So let's see if during the next few months someone can find such sources and does work on the article (without sources it will be impossible to work on it, which is why I thought it better should be deleted). --Minimaki (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Youth United

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Youth United. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Extolmonica (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Minimaki (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate you returning to the {{afd}} and taking the time to offer further explanation of your interpretation of WP:BIO.

I continue to disagree. I won't burden you with a repeat of the reasoning I offered in the {{afd}}. But I wanted to tell you I really appreciate correspondents who can disagree while remaining polite.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)