gwx on www.wikipedia.org

[Morts]

i was just searching on www.wikipedia.org when i saw it said Gwx in the result page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwx

sorry if this has already been noticed
i just thought i would tell you guys about it

[STEED]

[Letum]

Hmm, the article does not fit in with Wiki's rules. I expect it will be removed before long.

I love GWX, but wiki is not the place for this kind of article.

[_Seth_]

Hmmm...Dont see how this should break the wiki rules...
Just look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...otal_War_games

[Letum]

It fails the Notability Creteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

Ive put a proposed deletion on it.
Don't get me wrong, I love GWx, but wiki just isn't the place for such a non-notable topic.

There are insufficient published works including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. about GWx

The Total war games have plenty of exposure in published works altho wiki's article on them lacks cultural and other refrances.

[_Seth_]

Edited (And notable)
BTW: try searching for Silent Hunter 3 on wikipeida. The GWX addon is notable, since it shows the future of game modifications; those made by the community and not the company itself.

[CCIP]

I think GWX needs a Wiki article, but a more accurate one. This is not what an encyclopedia entry looks like :hmm:

[Letum]

Originally Posted by _Seth_

Edited (And notable)
BTW: try searching for Silent Hunter 3 on wikipeida. The GWX addon is notable, since it shows the future of game modifications; those made by the community and not the company itself.

I sudgest you read and understand the notability criteria more carefuly.

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia.

One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

• What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.The
• "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias.2
• "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.3
• The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. For example, several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works, but several researchers or journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles is a multiplicity of works.

One rationale for this criterion is that the fact that people independent of a subject have noted that subject in depth (by creating multiple non-trivial published works about it) demonstrates that it is notable.

There is no way GWx fits with the criteria.
What ever GWx shows, it does not have any "non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself"

Looking at the topics editing history I notice you have removed the delete proposal. This is also against wiki rules.


I'm not going to do anything more because I don't want to cause a argument, but I suggest you revise your decision to post the article.


*edit* The first paragraph now also breaks the wiki rules on posting Original research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ginal_research