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.
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:
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. :(
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…
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.