Caltrops - Rants





	[quote name="lifebaka++"]Well, I've looked at it again, as requested, and come to the same conclusion. There simply do not exist sufficient non-trivial, reliable, and third-party sources about Old Man Murray at this time. There are sources out there that can be cherrypicked (which I use in a non-negative way) from to get a decent chuck of verifiable information, but nothing substantial to meet the GNG with. I realize this is going to piss a lot of people off, so let me explain some things. When we use the words "notability" and "notable" on Wikipedia, we are not using it as defined by the English language. Wikipedia has some silly internally-used jargon, such as "notability," which we use because we know what it means. Anyone reading this can find our definition at the general notability guideline. We have a general notability guideline because, ideally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't cover everything. So we need some sort of relatively objective metric that tells us we can have an article about, say, Magic: The Gathering (or most other things that articles exist for), but not my Aunt Super-awesome Baka. We use the general notability guideline for it, but it's not perfect. So we also have subject guidelines to cover some of the gaps. Still, there are things that aren't even vaguely important but have articles, and things that are incredibly important but don't. Old Man Murray is probably closer to this latter category, along with some other video game review websites. The issue appears to be that people don't write real reviews or articles about sites like Old Man Murray, even if they are well known, considered important, and often-referenced. A similar situation exists with indie music labels. No one writes about them, and there isn't anything in the subject guidelines that covers them. The best solution to this issue would be to write up a subject notability guideline which covers video game review websites, and I would welcome an attempt at writing one. I'm not sure it would gain consensus among the wider Wikipedia community, but I can guarantee that it's Old Man Murray's best shot. I also note that I don't see an extremely compelling reason to ignore the general notability guideline in this case, and an extremely compelling reason is about what it should take to ignore it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 02:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC) As a separate note, I will not tolerate the casting of aspirations on other editors on my talk page. You can insult me all you like and I won't block you for it (though I can't guarantee that others won't), but insults directed at others are bad mojo. lifebaka++ 02:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC) [/quote]