Re: Wikipedia!
It's a little more complicated than that, that's just the supposed reason.
The real thing is that a certain admin over there is permabanned here and he is butthurt, so he is strictly enforcing rules that shouldn't be and bending others to his whim.
Actually, the article was written almost entirely by Moogy in the first place. Any information in it was immediately apparent. For example, to say "FFR is a flash-based rhythm game". Duh. There are some things which were questionable for an encyclopedic article, and those things easily were justified to remove, but an ENTIRE DELETE of the thing wasn't morally justified. They wanted outside sources proving notability and when they were put forward, the thing was deleted anyway due to lack of notability. ****ing ****s.
If things like FFR do not deserve articles, then other things such as Stepmania do not either. Aside from derivative works (i.e., ITG), I'd say that FFR is probably more notable than Stepmania. At the very least I can say that more people in the general population will have an idea what FFR is than what SM is.
But that said, Wikipedia is a warground between those who believe information should be inclusive and others who believe it should be exclusive. No matter how valid a piece of information is, there will always be some douchebag out there arguing that the information doesn't deserve to be recorded. It may be clear that I'm the type who thinks information should be inclusive, but I think that's just a load of ****.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Flash Revolution
Wikipedia
eletion review/Log/2006 December 15
Basically, FFR isn't notable enough.
Wikipedia
eletion review/Log/2006 December 15Basically, FFR isn't notable enough.
The real thing is that a certain admin over there is permabanned here and he is butthurt, so he is strictly enforcing rules that shouldn't be and bending others to his whim.
Actually, the article was written almost entirely by Moogy in the first place. Any information in it was immediately apparent. For example, to say "FFR is a flash-based rhythm game". Duh. There are some things which were questionable for an encyclopedic article, and those things easily were justified to remove, but an ENTIRE DELETE of the thing wasn't morally justified. They wanted outside sources proving notability and when they were put forward, the thing was deleted anyway due to lack of notability. ****ing ****s.
If things like FFR do not deserve articles, then other things such as Stepmania do not either. Aside from derivative works (i.e., ITG), I'd say that FFR is probably more notable than Stepmania. At the very least I can say that more people in the general population will have an idea what FFR is than what SM is.
But that said, Wikipedia is a warground between those who believe information should be inclusive and others who believe it should be exclusive. No matter how valid a piece of information is, there will always be some douchebag out there arguing that the information doesn't deserve to be recorded. It may be clear that I'm the type who thinks information should be inclusive, but I think that's just a load of ****.
Comment