Stop the evil!

[Ali]

Ho hum!

I noticed that it seems to have been marked for deletion by the same moderator who took a dislike to freeware adventures back in '06, and was so roundly mocked in these threads.

My worry is I don't really know if Nelly deserves to have a Wikipedia page. It seems to me that the value of an internet encyclopedia is that it can contain information on a broad range of topics, including cult and minority interest subjects. But I really don't know if that's the remit of Wikipedia.

[m0ds]

I don't get them either. I was bored and 2 days before Jacko's funeral put in one of the boxes of events that his funeral would be held at wherever that place was, all accurate info, just 2 days in advance, and they deleted it. Nelly is on mobygames, right? Well, that's the best place for it to be I'd say, whatever Wiki's decision, at least Mobygames will recognise it as a real game that real people played, even if Wiki think it's false info/not worthy. IMO I think the write up for Nelly and Fatman, and the Chzo games are all just and good information.

Who is the mod? The same guy that perhaps wasn't pleased about my entry back in October 2008? Oh please let it be a beautiful co-incidence that it IS the same guy - though for legal reasons I better not say why

[monkey0506]

When first launched Wikipedia became famous because of the accessibility to anything you possibly wanted to know about. If they didn't have it, feel free to add it!

Today Wikipedia has turned into something completely different. It's no longer just about the information. It's about what the individual elitists known as Wikipedians (not everyone with an account, but those who visit every single day and edit every page they find) like or dislike.

Understandably certain rules must be enforced such as reliability and for organization and streamlining purposes formatting. But notoriety?

Even if laced with images throughout, a single textual article does not take up that much space in the terms of data. Not to mention that data storage is one of the cheapest resources on the planet (to own; though not necessarily if it's being leased).

If you can cross-reference it, properly format it, verify your facts, prevent biased opinions, etc. then who cares if one person or even a million don't like what the article is about? As long as the other requirements have been met, and as long as one single person cares about the subject of the article enough to maintain said article to aforementioned quality standards, then IMO it has every right to have an article.

Wikipedia has become a very elitist, close-minded community. And that honestly makes me sad to say.

[Daniel Eakins]

I reverted his edits and left a friendly note at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Deletion_spree .

I'm not pessimistic; his nomination of 'Aveyond series' has been met with a shower of Keep votes for instance. One man isn't going to rule the roost, admin or not.

[Mr Flibble]

This is the problem with Wikipedia, the hideous, cave-dwelling morons behind the scenes who think they're important. I can tell I don't like this guy just because he describes himself as an ENTP.

[Mod edit: Name removed for anonymization]

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I don't know, I've never thought Wikipedia was an ideal place for ags games (at least non-commercial ones).  We have our very own and very nice AGS Wikipedia for freeware games already and no snotty admins to tell you that your ags game is not allowed.

[RickJ]

I'd like to suggest that archive.org would perhaps be useful as a historical archive for our games.  Their goal seems to be a repository of all human knowledge for all time. 

[Daniel Eakins]

I don't know, I've never thought Wikipedia was an ideal place for ags games (at least non-commercial ones).

Agreed. Honestly, non-commercial games in general are really not that notable in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. The ones that meet the guidelines are very few.

Part of what made me post on the talk page I linked to is that 8 people out of 8 voted 'Keep' in the nomination of the article 'Aveyond series'. When 100% of the voters say 'Keep', you just know the case is unambiguous and the article shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. And as far as I can tell none of the voters are AGS users so it's not some sort of bias.

Anyway, I do believe Nelly Cootaloot and Fatman are notable, since they've been reviewed by several professional critics and printed magazines. They are clearly not as notable as Monkey Island or Halo, but not all notable articles have to be as notable as them to be...well, notable.