User talk:PR Baram

Persistent Realms LLC
Hi PR! Thanks for your message.

The message was slightly misplaced; I'm not the one who decides whether to delete the article or not. In fact, an editor had nominated the article for a speedy delete where it would have simply disappeared without discussion, but I removed that tag and sent the article instead for community discussion and input on our AfD process instead. In fact, the article, in my opinion, does qualify for a speedy deleted under CSD-A7 (failure to assert notability) but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The AfD process is designed for members of the Wikipedia community to decide between them on whether an article meets with out policies on notability, not predicting the future and not being original research. So trying to convince me about the article is misplaced effort. You need to ensure the article complies with these three policies (at a minimum) and convince the community of it. AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion, so people are open to arguments and explainations. The process also takes seven days to complete, giving you plenty of time to hear what people are saying and change the article accordingly (you have to change for Wikipedia, not the other way around, I'm afraid). And asking for an exception for any reason won't work either as making an exception for you would mean making one for everybody.

So, I would advise going back to the article, addressing the three policy areas above (you'll find more info about how to do this at these two links: WP:WEB and WP:CORP) and then coming back to the AfD process and explaining what you've done, why and how - calmly, concisely and clearly. The admin who closes the AfD discussion - not me, by the way - will be influenced by what you have to say, especially if the article is radically different from how it stands now.

In other words, put all your efforts into correcting the article, and no effort at all into persuading people of the article's worth. Hope this helps. ➨  ЯEDVERS  10:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An admin who has not expressed an opinion on the AfD debate will be the one to close the debate - one of the other 900 or so. I don't personally know the user you're talking about, so I'm unaware of whether s/he is an admin or not. But you really need to assume good faith in your fellow editors rather than thinking people have ulterior motives. The admin who closes the debate will read through the debate and see what all the participants have said, then read the article in question, then decide based on what the community consensus is, plus any work that has been done on the article itself.


 * This is why I truly, truly advise you to stop argument and counterargument on the AfD and conducting debates on talk pages. If you devote some of the time you've spent arguing for the article to exist into actually editing the article, you'd be much more likely to see it survive. For instance - spell check it, as at the moment it is rubbishly spelt. Make sure it has lots of relevant internal links to other articles on Wikipedia. Make sure it has external links to other sites in the same genre. Make sure it has no more than one link to the company's website (more than that, people think "spam!"). Make sure that assertions you make about popularity have a reference to an external, third-party website. Make sure you actually assert notability. Your first sentence should be short, sharp and sum up exactly what makes your company stand apart from all others - preferably in less than 20 words (10 is even better).


 * You've put a lot of time and energy into lobbying for the article to be kept. You've put no time or energy into the article itself. And yet the article itself is what's most important. Stop the lobbying, start work. You have five days to save your article - and you'll only manage it by changing people's opinions (which are mostly negative) and you'll only change people's opinions by changing the article. You have to change to fit Wikipedia - you can't change Wikipedia to fit you in five days. Hell, I've been here for years and haven't managed to make much in the way of changes to Wikipedia policy.


 * Focus on the article, not on the editors. Starting now. ➨  ЯEDVERS  15:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Speculations
I noticed your speculation about me over on Redvers's talk page. I've never played one of IRE's games. I'm a coder on a MUSH site and I usually stick to RP focused games. Please understand, I think your game in development might be notable in the context of MUDs (you'll notice I didn't tag that article), but I don't think that a second article that seems be here to promote your company is warranted. Ehheh 14:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Other games
Hi PR. Sorry your article was deleted. Argument-by-exception doesn't tend to work here: previous creation or deletion of articles has no bearing on the creation or deletion of other articles. However, if you have a specific reason to object to another article's existance (other than "my article was deleted so this one should be deleted too") then you need to tag it with. That produces a tag that gives you access to the AfD process. Follow the red link it creates and on that new page add  where PageName is the name of the article (case sensitive) and Reason is your detailed reasoning why the article should be deleted. Finally, go to WP:AfD. There's a link marked "Add a new entry". Click that link and, at the bottom of the page, add  where PageName is is the name of the article (case sensitive). The community will then judge the article on its merits. I hope this helps. ➨  ЯEDVERS  09:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Persistent Realms LLC deletion
I won't argue with your decision, but I would appreciate if you could take the time to explain what the exact reasons you based your decision on were. I personally feel that notability is far too objective to be used as the sole requirement for deletion. If you look at Iron Realms Entertainment and their 4 sub pages you will see another company just like ours(granted they have been around longer, and we split from them) that is also non-notable outside of the MUD community. Some of their pages are obviously nothing more than an advertisement, such as Imperian, the Sundered Heavens. Even when those sites have been put up for speedy deletion, under A7 such as ours was, they have been found to fit in with Wikipedia. Most of their pages are also stubs, where ours was not.

To make a long post short, what was in our article that was lacking enough that deletion was the best choice? PR Baram 09:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello PR Baram. This page was deleted on the basis of notability, "crystal ball gazing", possible self-promotion, and per the consensus of established Wikipedia editors.  To have my decision reviewed, you may refer this to Deletion review.  Generally speaking though, the existence of one page on Wikipedia does not justify that of another.  From what I understand, this company is slated to release their first major game title in 2007.  My suggestion would be to wait until after the release of this game and then recreate the article at that time while incorporating those details.  Hope that helps.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 16:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * CSCWEM is, as always, speaking great sense. I suspect that the major issue Wikipedia editors had with the article was the fact that the notability - for an encyclopedia - was all in the future. When your company produces a major release next year, you will have fans. Those fans will talk about your company off-site and off-wiki and that will prove the notability of your company. You're not there yet, but you will be, if what your article said was accurate. We can't, obviously, work on what will be notable in 12 months. But if you do become notable, you will appear on Wikipedia. And if you're really really notable, someone else will create your article for you. And that'll be really good too. ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)