Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikilinks (game)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks (game)

This already exists in Wikipedia: space (Wikipedia:N degrees of separation), and it is not notable enough to exist in article space. Cross-namespace redirects are confusing, and unneeded in this instance, as no-one would ever link there. [[smoddy]] 12:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's notable among Wikipedians; we have articles on every single Pokemon ever created, every minor planet in the Star Wars and Star Trek universes, etc.--and those are only notable among their respective fan communities. What's the difference? Kurt Weber 14:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - oh, the irony. Rob Church 15:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wiki vanity. Dunc|☺ 16:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete First, this is not any encyclodaedic article, it is simply instructions on how to play a game. Second, as noted, it already has an article. And finally, it should be noted that the best of the fan pages group large numbers of what would otherwise be very minor stubs into single pages, such as List of Star Wars planets. Unless someone wants to create a "List of games that can be played with Wikipedia" and make this page a redirect, it should go. --Icelight 18:55, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • If the content of the article is inappropriate, then it should be altered--but as long as the topic itself is appropriate, the article itself should remain. The topic itself IS appropriate--Wikipedia is a substantial online community, and Wikilinks is well-known to members of that community. Kurt Weber 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think we should avoid self-references unless it's clearly demonstrated that it is notable outside of Wikimedia community. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a self-reference. A self-reference would be like saying "Certain encyclopedias (such as the one you are reading now) do X, Y, and Z". That is inappropriate. Saying "Certain encyclopedias (such as Wikipedia) do X, Y, and Z" is not a self-reference and is perfectly appropriate. An article simply about Wikipedia or a part of it is not a self-reference--which is why there can be an article on Wikipedia itself. See the difference?

A good rule of thumb is, if it mentions Wikipedia in the first person, it's a self-reference; if it mentions it in the third person, it's not. And just because an article may contain a self-reference in the content (which the one in question does not) does not mean that the TOPIC of the article is a self-reference--again, fix the content, don't delete the article.Kurt Weber 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• I propose we fix the content by deleting. The Wikipedia article in question is about playing a game on Wikipedia. It's therefore impossible (or at least useless) to remove the references to Wikipedia. Unless it's notable outside the Wikimedia community, I don't believe Wikimedia articles belong in article namespace. I understand and appreciate other views on this. This is just my opinion which I offer to other voters and the closer of the debate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And the point is, it's perfectly OK for an article to mention Wikipedia, as long as it does so in a manner that does not assume that the reader is viewing the article through en.wikipedia.org. I suggest you take some time and actually read the page you linked to--specifically the paragraph that reads:

Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia. If, in this framework, you link from an article to a Wikipedia page outside the main namespace, use external link style to allow the link to work also in a site with a copy of the main namespace content.

• I would ask you to assume good faith that I am well intentioned and of course read the guide without you republishing it. I understand that the point of WP:ASR and only linked to it as a courtesy to others to read what the policy actually says. My point is of another topic entirely than what it looks like on mirrors and my point was in the words I chose above twice not in the link. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep please somethings are notable enough dont we have articles on wikisource and other wikimedia stuff anyways Yuckfoo 18:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is exactly the kind of thing that belongs in the Wikipedia article space, and– oh, look! It already is! -- Plutor 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The content of the article itself belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, yes. But the topic of the article is perfectly appropriate, as it is a significant part of a major online community. Change the content; don't delete the article. Kurt Weber 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and a note: this game is actually the same as Wikipedia:Wiki-Link Game, not quite the same as N-degrees. -- Plutor 18:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nont notable outside of the context of Wikipedia. And we're not post-modern enough to start self-referencing ;). Fernando Rizo T/C 21:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This does not belong in article space, and it's already covered in Wikipedia-space. --Carnildo 22:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Flowerparty ^talk 00:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to make sure of consensus JesseW 04:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. -Splash 23:58, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.