Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Realm Online, A History


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Realm Online, A History

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Original research article that seems to be an unnecessary branch off of the The Realm Online article.  ceran  thor 01:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - excessive and pointless fancruft. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Entirely unsourced, and an unnecessary content fork. Any information that can be sourced should instead be added to the main article, where interested readers are more likely to find it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced WP:POVFORK created to avoid reversion of attempts to insert the same unverifiable content into The Realm Online. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORIGINAL. Endofskull (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am new to editing articles on Wikipedia. I seem to have offended a number of you with my additions to "The Realm Online" but I assure you, I mean no malice to anybody. i feel this way because when my content was removed, I was given very little reason as to why. Being a player of the game for over 10 years, I felt my experience in the community could add to the article that existed prior. So when that didn't work, I created a separate page. I understand that my experiences cannot be referenced, but the information I provided is a unique look at the game's robust history. Although I am glad to see that Wikipedia articles are being thoroughly examined for relevant content, I feel that I am being attacked in this scenario. The Realm has been running for 15 years and I honestly feel that the limited amount of history provided by the current article does not do the game justice, as I feel it deserves, being one of the oldest MMORPG or MUD games around. I see that I am outnumbered by people who feel my articles are worthless, and for that, my contributions are being taken down. Am I to understand that these parts of this game's history (In game commerce, player to player scamming) do not belong on The Free Encyclopaedia? I feel these elements are pertinent to this game's history. A reference to my contributions doesn't exist beyond my own experiences, but that does not warrant the erasure of such a rich history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickschiggins (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. It seems that you do not understand that Wikipedia requires all information to be verified in reliable, independent sources.  I understand that you would like to publish your thoughts about the history of this game, but Wikipedia is not a first publisher of information- it is against the rules for us to use any information from you except that which is referenced.  Since you say that you understand that your experiences cannot be referenced, then you understand that you haven't contributed anything that Wikipedia's rules permit us to publish, but I hope you find a place that will publish your thoughts on this subject.  Perhaps a games magazine or web site? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sickschiggins. It's unfortunate that you've had such a difficult initial experience, and please know that you're welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but that the way you contribute needs to be in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and standards.  To understand why your contribution of this document isn't appropriate, it's first necessary to understand that Wikipedia is not a place for publishing accounts of one's personal experience with topics; it is an encyclopedia built on information that can be verified with reliable third-party sources.  Reading WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research should clarify this.  I also note that nobody is "erasing" the history you've created; you are perfectly welcome to publish it on your own web site, for example.  Not everything needs to be in Wikipedia. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. Thanks for fixing the formatting. I was a little perturbed in the beginning because the user who originally removed my content from the page was a self-proclaimed wikipedia nazi (in their bio). Based on that immature description of themselves, I thought it was a user who just hadn't read my contribution, and was angry to see someone else adding to their article. It then became obvious that there was a team of people trying to remove my additions. The information I provided is minimal and I do not have a website to post it: Wikipedia provided a space for me to add content that is not being portrayed in the gaming industry. Thank you for clarifying that there are rules to follow and I was blatantly not following them. I had never once considered what I was doing as 'publishing' and was, honestly, just trying to spruce up the boring, short and non-specific article that currently exists. I figured, being a fan of the game, that there just wasn't enough there. I guess I didn't think it through more than that. Short and generally obscure reasons were given as to why it was removed, all of which I felt were inadequete . "Excessive and pointless fancruft" seems to be an inadequate reason to remove what I added, but, FisherQueen and Chaos5023, thank you for explaining my mistakes to me and offering suggestions so that my contributions can be read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickschiggins (talk • contribs) 04:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're entirely welcome, and I apologize that none of us managed to effectively communicate about the matter earlier. One of the dangers we encounter as we become more experienced as Wikipedia editors is that we fall into patterns of communication via shorthand and jargon that wind up doing what we call "biting the newbies" (itself a piece of jargon!).  You got bit; sorry.  Your basic motivations, in seeing the state of the article and feeling it needed more material, are absolutely great, and are what Wikipedia at its best thrives on.  If you can take that motivation and add on the skills involved in working from reliable sources, great things will result. :)  For instance, you very well might be able to go onto Google Books, search for "the realm online" and find previewable sources that provide verifiable documentation of facts about The Realm Online that you'd like to add.  It's a bit of work, no question, but it's definitely something that can be picked up. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete simply per WP:OR, and as said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete self-admitted WP:OR. In response to the question above "Am I to understand that these parts of this game's history (In game commerce, player to player scamming) do not belong on The Free Encyclopaedia?"  The answer is, well, yes.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:35, 17 November 2010 (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.