Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHWI-ISOT

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Alternative history (fiction). ABCD 18:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SHWI-ISOT
I don't think this is a notable game. It gets only 23 unique Google hits, or ~250 overall- and I'd argue that for an online-only entity like this, that's a very very small amount. CDC  (talk)  21:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete gamecruft. The article fails to mention how many people play this game, giving rise to suspicion that it is only a couple. Non-notable until proven otherwise. --Smithfarm
 * (Vote change) Merge and redirect to the alternative history page mentioned below. The game allegedly has 150 people interested in it enough to subscribe to a mailing list, which IMO is enough to warrant a mention in a larger article along with a redirect to that article. --Smithfarm
 * Keep I am the one who posted this page.  This is really my first experience with posting on wikipedia, though I do intend to make future contributions as time allows.  Let me share some of why I posted this.  I believe the game is notable due to a combination of factors; for its longevity (continuously running for 5 years), its unusual premise in gaming (it is a game where the character is one's own personae, placed in a different environment), and as an example of a very detailed alternate history scenario.  These reasons are why I felt it might be worth an encyclopedia entry.  It is true that the game itself is rather small, with 152 members currently subscribing to the list.  I came across the game through some google RPG seaches earlier this year.  I was impressed enough with the game premise to join it myself.  I further felt that the alternate history the game generated was a valuable addition to the alternate histories on the web, and was one of the ones who recently encouraged the nascent construction of the WIKISOT site to make that wealth of storytelling more accessible.  So in one sense, I would have to say that I am not unbiased in this discussion; in another, my own response to the game and the alternate history it has spawned makes me think it might be worthy of note.  As I said, I am relatively new to posting wikipedia entries.  Further reviewing some of the information on posting, I can see where this entry might be considered marginal.  I will still suggest keeping it, but would certainly be willing to hear from individuals with more experience in wiki posting on alternatives that might be considered.  I'd rather not simply see the entry deleted. -- Glen Finney 21:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: is the game part of a larger framework? If so, then the article could be integrated into a larger article on that. In any case, I'd suggest updating the article to reflect how many people play the game (150 is not necessarily a small number). Then wait and see whether other people think it's notable or not. --Smithfarm
 * Answer: I'm not certain what you mean here by a larger framework. The game was started by members of a usenet group on alternate history, but has long since diverged.  It could fit under the category of Alternative history (fiction) since its key feature is the alternate timeline the game generates.  So we could Merge it with that page, and have the current page redirect to that section of the Alternative history (fiction) page.
 * Yes, that would work. Make a new section entitled "Games based on alternative history novels" (or similar). Then make a subsection under that with your text. --Smithfarm
 * Okay. Does anyone know how I should procede then?  Should I just go ahead and do it, or should one of the moderators do it since this page is under discussion for deletion?  I really would like to at least have this as a redirect page....I'm going to need to brush up on how to do so. -- User:Glen Finney
 * I'm no seasoned Wikipedian, but I think if it's your page you have every right to resolve the VfD issue by merging and redirecting it. To merge, edit the source page in one window, edit the destination page in another window, and cut and paste the text from the source to the destination. To redirect, insert the text #REDIRECT destination page in the source page text window. It should be the only text in the window. This is covered in the user manuals, too.
 * Reread the VfD header on the article. Editting to improve the article is allowed, but we are asked to refrain from merging, so I guess we wait for an administrator. -- User:Glen Finney
 * Do as you like. You certainly won't do wrong by waiting. I don't think the header instructions are carved in stone, though. Over on the Votes_for_deletion/Neltharion page someone just said: "Go ahead and merge".  Perhaps the header instruction is intended especially for pages where there could be some controversy. I don't see any controversy here, though; do you? But, like I said, it's your page. Wait if you like. --Smithfarm


 * Change vote of page author to: Merge and Redirect to Alternative history (fiction) I think I should probably wait until the discussion period is over.  My newness to wikipedia is in part why I am here now, and I would rather not err again so soon.  I have already done a redirect from a related page that was not nominated for deletion but had the same issue.  I would like to see something similar done to this page, and would do it myself, but after reviewing carefully the guidelines, it appears that redirects are deferred until after discussion has closed.  Tomorrow will be five days so this should close soon.  Hopefully, the administrator will see my vote tag, and if there is rough concensus here, will do just that.  At the very least, if they put in a conclusion to that effect, I would then be happy to do the work myself.  Again, I really do want to respect the rules and guidelines here.  Thank you for your interest and advice, everyone.  Also, if you were to change your votes or add your votes for "Merge and Redirect" as I have done above, I believe that would help clarify that we have rough concensus, which appears to be the case from the feedback so far. -- Glen Finney 21:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.