Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Filthy Truth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Disregarding single-purpose accounts, the arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping. There was nothing presented to satisfy WP:ATT and WP:RS. --Coredesat 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Filthy Truth
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View log)
A web mailing list that doesn't seem to meet the guidelines laid out in WP:WEB. Googling only brings up about 600 ghits, almost all of which are irrelevant. This article fails WP:ATT and is not verifiable through reliable secondary sources. The current references consist of a forum mention and a copy of something from the mailing list itself. The article has been tagged with the "verify" tag since November and no improvements have been made to it. Delete as such. Wickethewok 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB, and the only sources are from forums... bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. A mailing list has to prove that it's notable, which is admittedly hard. At the time of this edit, there are two links that don't prove notability. --Dennisthe2 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Sourced by a mention on a forum, no reliable sources. No notibility, Not verifiable as its now private.--Dacium 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep TFT remains to be one of the most influential mailing lists in the games industry. Anyone may join if they are proposed and seconded and the so-called exclusive nature of the list is little more than mythical. MrMarmite 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A proposal to delete clearly shows a lack of knowledge of the significance of this mailing list. ACarPark 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Personal testimony really isn't worth much. Do you have any sources to back up your claims? Wickethewok 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This list is very well known to those who work in the games development industry, particularly those who came from or worked in the UK or US. The mere fact that those outside of the games development industry don't know about it or cannot find it on Google doesn't mean this article should be deleted. This site is after all a repository of knowledge and I would have thought because some knowledge is not well known by the general population but is also entirely accurate is good reason that it should be kept for future generations. Before anyone tries to claim personal testimony isn't worth much then I say they should reconsider because the personal testimony of someone with qualifications in a relevant field is actually worth something. My credentials as a games developer are as follows: http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,99935/ Fnagaton 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Per WP:ATT, Articles need to be based on independent reliable sources, regardless of who vouches for the supposed notability of something. Wickethewok 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- A source doesn't always have to be a link on the internet. Fnagaton 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Quite true. But you've failed to bring up any print sources either. Wickethewok 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Print sources and internet sources are not the only sources either. You wouldn't dismiss that a public speaking event happened just because you had not been there to witness it in person would you? You do have the ability to take personal testimony from an expert in a relevant field as a source don't you? You can contact me directly to verify what I write here. Fnagaton 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as Probably notable, with understanding about the difficulty of sourcing, but at least something could be added about N people who regularly post there. DGG 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as one of the original contributors to the body text of the Filthy Truth entry, it was decided to keep the wiki entry short and simple. too many wikipedia entries have become bloated and over-edited. the reason this page has not been updated in so long is that it says everything it needs to say, that are many much larger wiki entries that have less worth than this humble page. The Filthy Truth is more than a mailing list, its an online community that has had a huge impact on the games industry itself, the fact that it is one of the few places Games Developers can talk openly is one of it largest apeals to members. Many of the other places that the games industry communicate ( and where the Filty Truth is well known )are heavily monitored by the larger games companies ( Sony, Microsoft, EA ) and the ability to help others is limited for fear of reprisals. the Filthy Truth has contributed greatly to the development of hundreds of Video games that are listed in Wikipedia, please allow the people who made these games to also have a small place here too, and a little recognition. MrStarslayer 04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep TFT, although private, is an important mailing list for people involved in games development. If Wikipedia is to fulfil its aim of being a comprehensive online encyclopaedia, it must include all information, not just that which is well known or easy to find. A short article on TFT takes up very little space, and provides information on another aspect of the business and politics that goes with game development.Molesworth 08:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Molesworth — Molesworth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Might want to check out WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING for a good reason. --Dennisthe2 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The Filthy Truth remains an important part of the UK games industry subculture. It has been around for years, has hundreds of members and because of its active stream of information, debate & news will probably be around for many years more.152.114.1.10 08:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The currently listed Yahoo directory for The Filthy Truth displays a total membership of 110. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no sources that can verify its notability +Hexagon1 (t) 09:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately, there's no sources in the article. Any searching for sources is pretty well fruitless, as "The filthy truth" is a common enough phrase that even tossing qualifiers into the search term doesn't yield verifiable results. As word of mouth doesn't count as a verifiable source, I would suggest that those arguing for the article being kept find actual sources. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- "No sources in the article"? There are sources, I for one am a personal source and relevant industry expert. The article itself has http://www.firq.cwc.net/filthy.htm and http://www.answers.com/topic/james-poole Fnagaton 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. To clarify: There's nothing that meets the policy-defined concept of a reliable source. You might also want to check out the policy on verifiability. To sum it up: You are not a reliable source. Neither is a reposting of a forum thread, and Answers.com relies heavily on Wikipedia itself for it's content. Something which would be required is an article (as in published as content, not in forums) ON The Filthy Truth in a publication like EGM or on a site like IGN or 1UP.com. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect to try to dismiss my reliability because you have made no attempt to contact me in person to verify me as a source despite you having more than enough information to do so. I've been in the games industry for over ten years, I find it deplorable that you should attempt to dismiss an expert in a relevant field. According to your rules on reliable sources I am a primary source. Fnagaton 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- No - you are not a reliable source. Period. Even if you are who you say you are, even if those are your credentials, and even if those credentials qualified you to verify this article, interviewing you for the purposes of editing this article would be WP:OR on our part. You would only qualify as a source if you had been interviewed and published by a reliable and independent entity, and anything you say would need to be confirmed by another reliable and independant source. All industries have secret gatherings and in-jokes - that doesn't mean that any of these are suitable for Wikipedia. Please read WP:ATT and understand it. Delete for failing WP:V - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Even if you are who you say you are"? What rubbish. For your information I have been "interviewed and published by a reliable and independent entity" more than once and that is something you would have found out if you had checked the sources I have already given. Fnagaton 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Look, just read the Wikipedia policies I directed you to. I have no doubts you are an established professional with years of experience. I am not calling this into question. The problem is that sources need to meet verifiability standards. We can't treat you as a source because we'd be running off of your word alone. If we used you as a source, there's no guarantee that someone reading the article three months down the line could contact you to verify your claims, let alone a year or two years down the line. All good articles in Wikipedia have sources which can be investigated by anyone reading them, and at lease one source is REQUIRED for any article. You are not a source as defined by policy, though I'm certain you could contribute a fair amount of knowledge on this subject, as well as many other subjects. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have read the policies you posted and I don't see anything in them that would merit removing the article since the article does describe something which is probably notable as described by DGG above. However nothing is guaranteed, for example nothing guarantees that any interview on any site will stay there for years. It was CosmicPenguin that made the dubious comments about "Even if you are who you say you are" and I responded to that insinuation because it is not true. Fnagaton 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The conflict boils down to this: you require peer review, as well, especially if you are being a primary source. I will confess that, when somebody comes up and says something like "I'm a reliable source!", it sets up alarms all over the place - but that could be shellshock from participating in other rather...well, noisy AFDs. =^_^= Anyway, point being is that WP:RS doesn't exclude you, but now we have another issue - a mailing list is typically perceived as being little more than a means of communications for a group of people with a common interest, and I personally would compare it in notability to a conference room at an office - so to prove this list notable is, from what I can see, going to be a major struggle. So that said, you'll still have to change our minds. Good luck. --Dennisthe2 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Dennisthe2, I knew WP:RS does not exclude me despite what some other above were claiming, this was my point. ;) So moving forward, would you agree that being "peer reviewed" in this instance would be a case of someone else with similar or better background in the games industry to corroborate what I've been saying? May I also assume from your comment that you don't particularly agree with the whole List of mailing lists? Fnagaton 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- As for the list, another primary would help, but if you're using people to vouch for the list, you need to have some other resources. Good question on the list of mailing lists as well, as it does bring up another point. The Linux Kernel Mailing List alone gets coverage at least on Slashdot - partially I think because Linus Torvalds still participates a bit in discussion, and of course, when Linus so much as farts, Slashdot listens. =^_^= Something like that for TFT would, I think, be a keeper. --Dennisthe2 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- This idea has legs and I will see what can be done about providing another primary. Fnagaton 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, btw, I think CosmicPenguin's comment can probably be reinterpreted: anybody can say they are you, especially on the internet, and likewise, somebody to vouch for you online can come about at random as well (see WP:SOCK for a one example of this - not to say you're sockpuppeting, just demonstrating a point). This would be why we especially want a secondary and even a tertiary source for an expert vouching for something. If you can come up with something, this would be worth holding the AfD open a little longer, I think, if we have to - but that's just me. --Dennisthe2 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. There is somebody out there in meatspace with those credentials, but we have no way of knowing if those credentials belong to the person posting with the username 'Fnagaton'. As we were recently reminded in a very public way, we cannot assume good faith about the credentials of anybody who posts here. That is why it is is so important that we get reliable sources. If somebody comes here and states "I am Dr. Somebody, I am an expert in this field, and you can trust me that this is true", then in order to use that as a reliable source, we have to somehow qualify Dr. Somebody as an expert - this is nearly impossible to do. But if the same poster came along and said "I am Dr. Somebody, I am an expert in this field, here is an article about it in the London Times" - then all anybody has to do to verify it is go to the London Times and read the article, and we don't care if the poster is Dr. Somebody or not, because we're not relying on them. Thats how the system works. You can take offense at all this if you wish, but many of us also happen to be professionals and experts in our respective fields, and yet not a single one of us enjoy the right to post freely without attributing our work. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- "but we have no way of knowing if those credentials belong to the person posting with the username 'Fnagaton'" - You can use the contact details I have posted here and on my user page to send an email to my company (which you can also verify as being notable by doing a simple search) whereupon I will confirm that this user account and the "Martin Piper" who has been in the games industry for over ten years are in fact the same person. I've invited this kind of verifiable contact more than once on this page and nobody has yet done so.
- Perhaps you're not quite understanding the issue here. We don't care whether you are who you claim to be. That is not the issue. You could be and nobody's actively disputing that. However, policy requires us not to take this at face value. If you'd like to contribute your knowledge, you must do so via articles and interviews with Martin Piper which have been published elsewhere. We cannot take your word for this due to policy. You may not always be a wikipedia contributor and you may not always be accessible to those who've read the page and wish to verify the statements made. Because of THAT SPECIFIC REASON, you are not a source. Period. A source is something that anyone reading the article can check right then and there, without having to contact someone else and request clarification. A source is words written, or words spoken and recorded. An EGM article in which you give an interview, for example, will always be there. It doesn't require specific contact with you to flip open EGM issue for random month/random year and verify what you've said. That's what makes EGM a source, but not User:Fnagaton. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I understand perfectly and it looks like you are wrong because you started off this trying to claim there are no reliable sources, to which I provided sources and myself as a source and as later pointed out by Dennisthe2 regarding WP:RS does not exclude me. You and others then tried to start claiming you couldn't verify who I am. I have given you more than enough information for you to verify who I am, my industry experience and my company notability. I am not expecting you to "take my word for this" but I do expect you to follow policy and to conduct the required checks you are meant to do from the information provided. What you are doing is continuing to post verifiability and to dismiss the information that does allow verifiability. It was it noted in the record that not one of those complaining about verifiability have actually made any effort to verify who I am because nobody has gone to my company website and emailed the company to try to make contact. It is your job to check and you are not doing it. By the way, at least one of the links in my user profile is a reliable source to a respected site that lists profiles of some of those working in the games industry and the information they post is peer reviewed and verified, that is how you get to my company website and then you can contact me through there to verify the facts posted here. Fnagaton 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- You've misinterpreted Dennisthe2's comments. Specifically, regarding you as a reliable source. By the strict definition of a reliable source, you would count. To quote WP:RS "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources." Both are not just "So and So said X to us on a Talk Page", but "So and So said X in a newspaper". Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have not misrepresented Dennisthe2's comments and I demand that you retract that baseless accusation. I want it noted in the record that you are now avoiding the issue of your failure to properly verify the the information from the reliable sources that have been given. As such I submit that all of your comments about verifiability are discounted from this discussion until such time that you demonstrate you are going to comply with the policy. Fnagaton 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, chill! He didn't say misrepresented, he said misinterpreted! It's two different things, man! You may have misinterpreted, but that's not misrepresentation, it's just an honest mistake! --Dennisthe2 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have not misrepresented Dennisthe2's comments and I demand that you retract that baseless accusation. I want it noted in the record that you are now avoiding the issue of your failure to properly verify the the information from the reliable sources that have been given. As such I submit that all of your comments about verifiability are discounted from this discussion until such time that you demonstrate you are going to comply with the policy. Fnagaton 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- You've misinterpreted Dennisthe2's comments. Specifically, regarding you as a reliable source. By the strict definition of a reliable source, you would count. To quote WP:RS "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources." Both are not just "So and So said X to us on a Talk Page", but "So and So said X in a newspaper". Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I understand perfectly and it looks like you are wrong because you started off this trying to claim there are no reliable sources, to which I provided sources and myself as a source and as later pointed out by Dennisthe2 regarding WP:RS does not exclude me. You and others then tried to start claiming you couldn't verify who I am. I have given you more than enough information for you to verify who I am, my industry experience and my company notability. I am not expecting you to "take my word for this" but I do expect you to follow policy and to conduct the required checks you are meant to do from the information provided. What you are doing is continuing to post verifiability and to dismiss the information that does allow verifiability. It was it noted in the record that not one of those complaining about verifiability have actually made any effort to verify who I am because nobody has gone to my company website and emailed the company to try to make contact. It is your job to check and you are not doing it. By the way, at least one of the links in my user profile is a reliable source to a respected site that lists profiles of some of those working in the games industry and the information they post is peer reviewed and verified, that is how you get to my company website and then you can contact me through there to verify the facts posted here. Fnagaton 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're not quite understanding the issue here. We don't care whether you are who you claim to be. That is not the issue. You could be and nobody's actively disputing that. However, policy requires us not to take this at face value. If you'd like to contribute your knowledge, you must do so via articles and interviews with Martin Piper which have been published elsewhere. We cannot take your word for this due to policy. You may not always be a wikipedia contributor and you may not always be accessible to those who've read the page and wish to verify the statements made. Because of THAT SPECIFIC REASON, you are not a source. Period. A source is something that anyone reading the article can check right then and there, without having to contact someone else and request clarification. A source is words written, or words spoken and recorded. An EGM article in which you give an interview, for example, will always be there. It doesn't require specific contact with you to flip open EGM issue for random month/random year and verify what you've said. That's what makes EGM a source, but not User:Fnagaton. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- "but we have no way of knowing if those credentials belong to the person posting with the username 'Fnagaton'" - You can use the contact details I have posted here and on my user page to send an email to my company (which you can also verify as being notable by doing a simple search) whereupon I will confirm that this user account and the "Martin Piper" who has been in the games industry for over ten years are in fact the same person. I've invited this kind of verifiable contact more than once on this page and nobody has yet done so.
- Absolutely right. There is somebody out there in meatspace with those credentials, but we have no way of knowing if those credentials belong to the person posting with the username 'Fnagaton'. As we were recently reminded in a very public way, we cannot assume good faith about the credentials of anybody who posts here. That is why it is is so important that we get reliable sources. If somebody comes here and states "I am Dr. Somebody, I am an expert in this field, and you can trust me that this is true", then in order to use that as a reliable source, we have to somehow qualify Dr. Somebody as an expert - this is nearly impossible to do. But if the same poster came along and said "I am Dr. Somebody, I am an expert in this field, here is an article about it in the London Times" - then all anybody has to do to verify it is go to the London Times and read the article, and we don't care if the poster is Dr. Somebody or not, because we're not relying on them. Thats how the system works. You can take offense at all this if you wish, but many of us also happen to be professionals and experts in our respective fields, and yet not a single one of us enjoy the right to post freely without attributing our work. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- As for the list, another primary would help, but if you're using people to vouch for the list, you need to have some other resources. Good question on the list of mailing lists as well, as it does bring up another point. The Linux Kernel Mailing List alone gets coverage at least on Slashdot - partially I think because Linus Torvalds still participates a bit in discussion, and of course, when Linus so much as farts, Slashdot listens. =^_^= Something like that for TFT would, I think, be a keeper. --Dennisthe2 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Dennisthe2, I knew WP:RS does not exclude me despite what some other above were claiming, this was my point. ;) So moving forward, would you agree that being "peer reviewed" in this instance would be a case of someone else with similar or better background in the games industry to corroborate what I've been saying? May I also assume from your comment that you don't particularly agree with the whole List of mailing lists? Fnagaton 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The conflict boils down to this: you require peer review, as well, especially if you are being a primary source. I will confess that, when somebody comes up and says something like "I'm a reliable source!", it sets up alarms all over the place - but that could be shellshock from participating in other rather...well, noisy AFDs. =^_^= Anyway, point being is that WP:RS doesn't exclude you, but now we have another issue - a mailing list is typically perceived as being little more than a means of communications for a group of people with a common interest, and I personally would compare it in notability to a conference room at an office - so to prove this list notable is, from what I can see, going to be a major struggle. So that said, you'll still have to change our minds. Good luck. --Dennisthe2 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- regarding this issue, the information at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/tft3/ proves that the list is current and has an active membership, and the Wiki entry simply explains what the list is. how is this any less notable than say the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PS2_DVD9_games that has a list of playstation 2 games that are on the DVD-9 format? if you wish for secondary / tertiary varification of identities, then i invite you to join the group one day, and we can e-mail you from all the big games company names you'd care to mention. would that suffice as expert vouching? MrStarslayer 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The issue is not notability, but verifiability. Arguments can easily be made for The Filthy Truth's notability. However, without sources to verify the notability, the article cannot remain on Wikipedia. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was a few posters up at the start who were writing about notability. Again you are trying to claim there are no sources when I have posted those sources. I further submit to you that until you make an effort to verify the facts posted you drop the issue of verifiability. Fnagaton 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I'll point out that forum postings, reposting forum postings, and Answers.com are not suitable sources which can be used for verification under current policy. To quote WP:V: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Even if the current home of The Filthy Truth would count as a source, it requires backup in the form of secondary sources, something even the most recent revision of the article lacks. And regarding me confirming the facts... The onus regarding any questioned items is for the user wishing to keep the questioned facts provide a source, not for the user wishing to remove the questionable item. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Now you are misrepresenting the facts because you know full well that those are not the only sources that have been provided. I have bent over backwards to provide myself as a primary source and to vouch for this article. The onus is on you to check the facts provided, you have not done that check, therefore you have no logical reason to dismiss those facts. Fnagaton 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's like we said earlier, we still need the secondary sources. Look, I could conceivably phone you and talk to you, but I can't be that secondary source. Have you been interviewed by the major gaming or other mainstream press that verifies the notability of the list in something more than just passing comments? If yes, provide the information so we can verify, and we can work with that for a secondary. See the secondary list in WP:RS for what we need - that we lack this is what is stopping us from accepting your statements as a primary. --Dennisthe2 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Now you are misrepresenting the facts because you know full well that those are not the only sources that have been provided. I have bent over backwards to provide myself as a primary source and to vouch for this article. The onus is on you to check the facts provided, you have not done that check, therefore you have no logical reason to dismiss those facts. Fnagaton 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I'll point out that forum postings, reposting forum postings, and Answers.com are not suitable sources which can be used for verification under current policy. To quote WP:V: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Even if the current home of The Filthy Truth would count as a source, it requires backup in the form of secondary sources, something even the most recent revision of the article lacks. And regarding me confirming the facts... The onus regarding any questioned items is for the user wishing to keep the questioned facts provide a source, not for the user wishing to remove the questionable item. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm prety sure that I also spoke of how to verify the sources in my last comment. perhaps you overlooked this. feel free to contact me ( myspace or gmail ) and you can come on to the list and talk to as many verifiable names in the industry as you like. the only reason no names are mentioned in the wiki article is to allow people a little anonimity, would putting the names of several willing people on to the page help? or would you also call them out as "non-verified source" and then not follow oportunities to help us verify them?MrStarslayer 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of contacting you. That's never been the issue. I've cited Wikipedia:Reliable Sources several times and I invite you to read the policy very carefully because it goes hand-in-hand with my objection to the article: Wikipedia:Verifiability. There's no perfectly reliable way for any reader to contact you OR User:Fnagaton in regards to your claims to verify the information in the article. I'm not talking in the context of today, this week, or even necessarily within the next three months. If someone reads this article a year from now, there's no guarantee that either of you will still work in the field you do, that you will still post to The Filthy Truth, or that the contact information left as a reference will be accurate. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I somehow feel that this is using the letter of the rules to spite the spirit of the rules. we're trying to provide you with everything that you need, yet the majority of the sources that can prove what you want are under direct control of the larger games companies and access to them come at the cost of working on a playstation or x-box game. this is why the Filthy Truth is as well known as it is amoung the games industry, its one of the only places where games developers can talk freely, and thus has merit here. there are many places on Wikipedia that have more dubious information, mostly unregulated, in particular the user profiles of the admin's and editors, do they get checked out via newspaper articles and press coverage as well? MrStarslayer 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- But we've already made it clear on what we need. It's like I said to Fnagaton, in summary: anybody can say you're you, and anyone else can vouch for that. That makes that unverifiable - and this is why we need that secondary source, and this is what prompts the constant references to WP:RS - the list is there. That is what we need. Sure, you can be a primary, but get a secondary source per that policy (i.e., not another person, but perhaps a published interview - and in this case, something that mentions the TFT list in more than just passing) to provide the vouching. --Dennisthe2 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Check out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I can identify with your frustration about the status of the article, but Wikipedia requires secondary sources to back up primary sources of information. As regards userpages, those are frequently policed though held to a lesser standard. The simple fact of the matter is that other items which might merit deletion get caught sooner or later, and the deletion of these articles is part of the process of dealing with a structure like this. Policy is strict on this matter: Articles need secondary sources to back up primary sources. Any article without secondary can be deleted if no secondary sources can be found. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I somehow feel that this is using the letter of the rules to spite the spirit of the rules. we're trying to provide you with everything that you need, yet the majority of the sources that can prove what you want are under direct control of the larger games companies and access to them come at the cost of working on a playstation or x-box game. this is why the Filthy Truth is as well known as it is amoung the games industry, its one of the only places where games developers can talk freely, and thus has merit here. there are many places on Wikipedia that have more dubious information, mostly unregulated, in particular the user profiles of the admin's and editors, do they get checked out via newspaper articles and press coverage as well? MrStarslayer 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of contacting you. That's never been the issue. I've cited Wikipedia:Reliable Sources several times and I invite you to read the policy very carefully because it goes hand-in-hand with my objection to the article: Wikipedia:Verifiability. There's no perfectly reliable way for any reader to contact you OR User:Fnagaton in regards to your claims to verify the information in the article. I'm not talking in the context of today, this week, or even necessarily within the next three months. If someone reads this article a year from now, there's no guarantee that either of you will still work in the field you do, that you will still post to The Filthy Truth, or that the contact information left as a reference will be accurate. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was a few posters up at the start who were writing about notability. Again you are trying to claim there are no sources when I have posted those sources. I further submit to you that until you make an effort to verify the facts posted you drop the issue of verifiability. Fnagaton 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The issue is not notability, but verifiability. Arguments can easily be made for The Filthy Truth's notability. However, without sources to verify the notability, the article cannot remain on Wikipedia. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have read the policies you posted and I don't see anything in them that would merit removing the article since the article does describe something which is probably notable as described by DGG above. However nothing is guaranteed, for example nothing guarantees that any interview on any site will stay there for years. It was CosmicPenguin that made the dubious comments about "Even if you are who you say you are" and I responded to that insinuation because it is not true. Fnagaton 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Look, just read the Wikipedia policies I directed you to. I have no doubts you are an established professional with years of experience. I am not calling this into question. The problem is that sources need to meet verifiability standards. We can't treat you as a source because we'd be running off of your word alone. If we used you as a source, there's no guarantee that someone reading the article three months down the line could contact you to verify your claims, let alone a year or two years down the line. All good articles in Wikipedia have sources which can be investigated by anyone reading them, and at lease one source is REQUIRED for any article. You are not a source as defined by policy, though I'm certain you could contribute a fair amount of knowledge on this subject, as well as many other subjects. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Even if you are who you say you are"? What rubbish. For your information I have been "interviewed and published by a reliable and independent entity" more than once and that is something you would have found out if you had checked the sources I have already given. Fnagaton 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- No - you are not a reliable source. Period. Even if you are who you say you are, even if those are your credentials, and even if those credentials qualified you to verify this article, interviewing you for the purposes of editing this article would be WP:OR on our part. You would only qualify as a source if you had been interviewed and published by a reliable and independent entity, and anything you say would need to be confirmed by another reliable and independant source. All industries have secret gatherings and in-jokes - that doesn't mean that any of these are suitable for Wikipedia. Please read WP:ATT and understand it. Delete for failing WP:V - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are incorrect to try to dismiss my reliability because you have made no attempt to contact me in person to verify me as a source despite you having more than enough information to do so. I've been in the games industry for over ten years, I find it deplorable that you should attempt to dismiss an expert in a relevant field. According to your rules on reliable sources I am a primary source. Fnagaton 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. To clarify: There's nothing that meets the policy-defined concept of a reliable source. You might also want to check out the policy on verifiability. To sum it up: You are not a reliable source. Neither is a reposting of a forum thread, and Answers.com relies heavily on Wikipedia itself for it's content. Something which would be required is an article (as in published as content, not in forums) ON The Filthy Truth in a publication like EGM or on a site like IGN or 1UP.com. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- "No sources in the article"? There are sources, I for one am a personal source and relevant industry expert. The article itself has http://www.firq.cwc.net/filthy.htm and http://www.answers.com/topic/james-poole Fnagaton 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is Lankybugger is not applying WP:RS correctly, that is to say using the bolding to highlight one bit without considering the whole, (in comment 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)) and I will show why. "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about." : Note the full stop. "An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources." : Note it does not say they are the only sources that can be used, obviously since there are more than two methods of reporting something. Also Lankybugger has been saying "It's not a matter of contacting you. That's never been the issue." and then proceeds to say "There's no perfectly reliable way for any reader to contact you" which leads to self contradiction since that user has been also trying to use "lack of contact" so the points of that user are inconsistent. WP:OR says it plainly "There is no firm definition of reliable, ... In general, ... As a rule of thumb....". Note the wording, it doesn't say reliable sources explicitly only come from only those things mentioned, the reliability of a source is more like a value judgement. DGG's comment appears to mirror this point of view. Fnagaton 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above discussions.TheRingess (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
