23 Sep, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I was sitting here last night, and thought "I bet I could put an article about my game into Wikipedia." I have certainly seen many other games listed there, and I (for some odd reason) decided we should be as well.

Now I am no Wiki-genius (more a wiki-n00b), so I go there, read a bit, decide I can do it and start a page. By the time I submit it is already marked for speedy deletion….

So anyone know much about Wikipedia that could give me some pointers, aid, help or advice would be much appreciated, and get twice what I got them last year for Christmas. I know the content is a little lacking (alright, a lot), and have posted in my staff section asking for content (lock me in the coding closet…), so content may be forthcoming.

Throes of Creation on Wikipedia
23 Sep, 2008, Cratylus wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Unfortunately they didn't bother to tell you why it was marked for deletion.
This is pretty common, sadly.

Aside from being "unencyclopedic", the main reason it was probably
marked for speedy deletion is that your mud does not meet the
notability guidelines. Specifically, the subject of an article has to
be important enough that it shows up in other media, etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N

For example, Discworld MUD is on Wiki and isn't flagged because it's
been discussed in various print magazines and is generally
noteworthy. Its entry in wiki is not promotion, it's an informative article
about a noteworthy thing.

If you can demonstrate why your mud meets the notability guidelines,
you will run into fewer objections, but note that it's pretty hard to do.
Unless your mud really does meet the criteria in a way that's hard to
argue with, I'd get used to the idea that it's going to fall off Wiki. :(

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

EDIT:
——-
Actually, it looks like they did cite a reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:C...

General reason 11: "Blatant advertising"
23 Sep, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
The page won't last unless it's a MUD mentioned in news articles.

Put it here: http://mu.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
23 Sep, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Keeping a mud listed on Wikipedia is hard work - even DikuMUD was nominated for deletion at one point (but take a look at its references now).

As Cratylus mentioned, you really need to write the article in a non-promotional way, describing what makes it notable, and providing appropriate references to verifiable sources.

Then all you have to worry about is vandalism. Speaking of which, I just noticed someone ranting on the GodWars page, although it looks like someone else has already reverted it. Very strange rant, too…

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl...

I've no idea who he is, and I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say, but that's the sort of person you have to deal with on Wikipedia.
23 Sep, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I've no idea who he is, and I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say, but that's the sort of person you have to deal with on Wikipedia.


Looks like a random moron to me.
23 Sep, 2008, Skol wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
I found Wiki was more headache than it was worth. My game's been around since 1996, it's one of the Oldest Dragonlance muds left (I think Artic is older, Solace is gone now iirc). I've run a builders guide section with downloadable texts to help with building in any Rom Deriv since 2k. They vaped the listing pretty quickly, even though I tried to write it from a purely informational standpoint as a historical mud and as an informational resource etc.
23 Sep, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Yep, 3rd party news sources are needed to help it stay there. At least my MUD wasn't speedy deleted back in 2005. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V...
23 Sep, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Hmmm. I thought the defining vision for Wikipedia was to create a repository of everything, where the data was entered by anyone, and verified by everyone. I take it they have strayed from their original purpose?

It seem rather arrogant to only accept articles that cover "popular" or "well known" topics. It seems even MORE elitist to delete newly created entries that don't conflict with anything else, just because no one has (yet) chimed in with additional citations or details.

Oh well, I guess it's just another example of how the only things that matter are money, popularity, and size. :devil:
23 Sep, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
It has never been meant for a repository for everything.

And it makes sense. No one would care about an article about a pet rat named James the Third owned by some 6 year old.
23 Sep, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
I had it marked under construction, and I attempted contesting it. Gone already anyway.

One of my builders has stated he has asked for the text of it, and that he will work on the article. Seems (from his post, though I have not talked with him yet) that he has experience dealing with Wikipedia.

As to articles, I can work toward getting it reviewed in a few online magazines.

Thank you all for your input.
23 Sep, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
There is a process where you can move the deletion process from speedy to a "debate". Should be mentioned there.

But if you read the link I posted, you will see people think that most MUDs are "non-noteworthy" and if most people think that your MUD will never stay an article no matter how many sources you have.
23 Sep, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Zeno said:
There is a process where you can move the deletion process from speedy to a "debate". Should be mentioned there.

I did that. I also argued that it was software, and that we also taught people (staff) coding languages at the site. There wasn't even a response to the issues I raised on the "Talk Page", just deletion.

Zeno said:
But if you read the link I posted, you will see people think that most MUDs are "non-noteworthy" and if most people think that your MUD will never stay an article no matter how many sources you have.

Then perhaps we need to change that perception.

If I do get an article to stay I will post how.
23 Sep, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
tbaMUD's page was removed a few months after being added as well. It's mentioned in CicleMUDs page and that wasn't removed but as its own page it was.
23 Sep, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Fizban said:
tbaMUD's page was removed a few months after being added as well. It's mentioned in CicleMUDs page and that wasn't removed but as its own page it was.

And that is a shame, because technically you are a "school" which should meet their submission criteria.
Random Picks
0.0/14