VGC Wikipedia Page Up For Deletion

[LoganRuckman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nomination)

Please help save this page. It took forever to even become a page. I'd hate to see it go.

[SigSauerLover]

At least we'll always have his dramatica encyclopedia page (which is humurous).

[scotland]

It seems to be both reliability and notability, but its notability, lack of being linked by sources that are reliable to the editors that seems to be the reason. Neither criteria is any great trophy, as a biased magazine like Sega Magazine is considered reliable and notable, or Gamefaqs as unreliable but notable.

In a larger sense, Dave is a small business, and many small businesses complain about wikipedia's collective mindset on notability. Something that is notable to a group, whether retro gamers like us, or a local community, is not notable to Wikipedia.

It was not wikipedia that directed me anyway, but Dave's reviews.

[LoganRuckman]

Yeah, so unfortunately, the page was deleted, but I put it up on Wikinfo: http://wikinfo.org/w/index.php/Video_Game_Critic

I hate Wikipedia's notability guidelines. First of all, notability is highly subjective. What may be notable to someone may be meaningless to someone else. In general, I think deletionism is counter-productive. As long as the information provided is reliable, and the subject isn't made up, then I don't see why an article should be deleted simply because it goes against arbitrary notability guidelines, which in most cases, simply means either the deletionist doesn't like it or has never heard of it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a massive encyclopedia with a wealth of information, and Jimmy Wales himself is an inclusionist, wanting Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia of all known human knowledge, and yet, the deletionists seem to have the overwhelming amount of power. Instead of researching topics and trying to help an article grow, they simply decide to delete anything they consider unworthy. They're actually restricting information with their bureaucratic politics, and there's nothing the inclusionists can do about it. Hell, even Jimbo isn't safe, as an article about a South African restaurant (which has since been restored) that he created was deleted before. I honestly wish there was an inclusionist alternative.

[scotland]

I understand any website needs criteria for being covered, but its got to be fair and universal.

I see Daves site is still a link on 'video game review websites'. Like pages with lists of things, those things need not be notable themselves, but I bet it vets removed in time. Or he could have an entry on a devoted video game wiki like encyclopedia gamia. Or it could be like the Old Man Murray review website deletion issue that wikipedia seems it would rather forget.

Wikipedia is flawed in many ways, and haphazard notability and deletion issues are just one of them.

[VideoGameCritic]

I wonder if this might be a movement within the industry to marginalize my site. I'm sure a lot of companies would like to see my site go away since I tend to resist a lot of trends the industry is trying to push (always online, DLC, micro-transactions, etc). Also, I'm no push-over when it comes to reviews.

As with most things politics plays a major role in Wikipedia. I think it used to be an impartial source but there's too much money in it now. It seems like every week there's a new controversy about people doctoring articles.

[Vexer6]

Somehow I highly doubt that your site is being targeted, honestly most execs in the gaming industry probably haven't even heard of your site, when it comes to reviews, publishers generally only go after the top gaming sites and magazines(I.E. IGN, Gamespot, Game Informer, Destructoid, etc) that give them unfavorable reviews scores, the VGC site seems like it would be a very small priority to most publishers since it never really appears in gaming news.

I don't think politics plays much of a role in Wikipedia, if that were true, then EA's edits to it's own Wikipedia page to try and make themselves look better would've been allowed to remain, I still believe the site is impartial(except for their stance against SOPA, but that needed to be done so I commend them for doing that).

People trying to doctor articles has nothing to do with money, people just want to make themselves look better, in the vast majority of examples of pages being edited negatively, those edits are reversed, for example the ESA attempted to edit articles relating to mod chips(basically removing text disputing the law regarding their legality) and their edits were not allowed to stand.

[JustLikeHeaven]

Vexer, I think The Critic was being sarcastic...

[jon]

One thing I've noticed throughout the entertainment industry is journalists are scared of losing their jobs. Maybe because the journalism industry has sunk, maybe it's pressure from the big publishers, but it seems like it's harder for them to find jobs if they lose the one they have. So what they do is give everything a good review no matter what. I've noticed this in music too. Gone are the days where a Gamepro reviewer could give a game from a big company a bad review. Maybe it's because there's so few big players anymore. There's only a few developers that run the show, and if someone gives a new game a straight up bad review it just seems like their in trouble.

[Sonicx9]

I wonder if this might be a movement within the industry to marginalize my site. I'm sure a lot of companies would like to see my site go away since I tend to resist a lot of trends the industry is trying to push (always online, DLC, micro-transactions, etc). Also, I'm no push-over when it comes to reviews.

As with most things politics plays a major role in Wikipedia. I think it used to be an impartial source but there's too much money in it now. It seems like every week there's a new controversy about people doctoring articles.

Also you give unpopular review opinions on games such as Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, where you give the Wii U version a lower grade then the 3DS version, so that might have something to do with VGC Wikipedia Page Up For Deletion?

Meanwhile, Wikipedia does unnecessary Wikipedia articles such as PC Master Race: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Master_Race (god I hate this term and should burn in a fire!)