User talk:Juxtapono

Hi there Juxtapono, Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed your comments on the AfD for Juxtapono and thought I would try to explain some of the problems with the article.

References, two of your references explain the formation of the word, Juxtapono. They are valid for this purpose but irrelevent to the issue of notability of the game itself, the most important issue in accepting articles on any subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. Especially see WP:NOTE#The general notability criterion. The third reference addresses the theory and construction of this type of puzzle, but does not address the notability of this game.

Other games, the other games you mention each have independent sources in their references. Both 'Chess' and 'Scrabble' have several references about strategy, competitions, history, etc. that are published by outside disinterested parties that clearly establish the article's notability. In the case of 'Sorry' and 'Risk,' these sources are much thinner and the argument could be made that they are not sufficient. Even if that were the case it is generally accepted that 'other crap exists' is not a valid argument to keep an article.

The word itself, as you state, is a neologism, WP:NEO explains why these words are generally not accepted either for use in an article or as a title for an article.

Conflict of interest, WP:COI points out that a person writing about him/her self or his/her company or product has a hard time being completely neutral on that topic. You are talking about your baby here and what parent says, 'well, she really is rather plain and ordinary, or yet to be accepted, etc?' That's not to say the article is not neutral, but that a potential exists.

In general, any new thing will have a hard time proving notability, it takes time for there to be outside, independent notice and thus notability. The criteria varies and is not set in stone, and is constantly being debated and redefined. You may truly have solved the Unified Field problem in physics but until the theory is reviewed and critiqued by outside and independent sources it won't be in Wikipedia.

Lastly, take heart. If your game is truly cool people will see that and buy it and start tournaments on college campuses and it will get referred to on gaming web sites and some weird punk band will have it on a CD cover and it will be mentioned on the Simpsons. When that happens it will get an article on WP. I hope you will find other ways to contribute to WP and not be soured by your experience with this article. If you have any questions feel free to post them here, I have this page on my watch list and will see it if you do, or visit my talk page and leave a message. --killing sparrows 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning to understand...

Thank you for taking the time to help me understand why there are concerns about the article on Juxtapono. Regarding notability, let's suippose I was writing about a car, and no cars presently exist. Would it be possible to cite references for an engine, drive train, chassis, body, etc., and therefore the article subject is notable due to the car being the sum af all its notable parts? If such could be the case; Juxtapono is notable since it is a cummulative step from an existing body of work that is presently well documented and embedded within Wikipedia and other notable sources. In essence, Scrabble + Sudoku + unique features = Juxtapono. Would the article be more acceptable, i.e. as a notable subject, if rewritten with accompaning references to include this track of thought? Thanks again for your patience and assistance while I learn the ropes in Wikipedia.Juxtapono 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juxtapo,

I'm glad you found my comments helpful!

The situation you describe above is addressed in WP:SYN, a section of WP:NOR, which says...

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

...there are some examples listed on the page from actual articles, but that's the gist of it.

Have you tried sending copies of your game to magazines, websites, etc. that review and comment on new games? If any of them were to do so, that would be the type of sourcing needed to meet the requirements.

Many new things (bands, actors, writers, inventions) would like to have their stuff mentioned in WP because of the exposure and hit ranking on Google, but WP is not for advertising. At the risk of sounding like I'm giving you a homework assignment, you might also read WP:NOT, especially WP:NOT#SOAP. I know all these WP:this and WP:that links seems off-putting, many users use so much Wikishorthand as to make the site incomprehensible to newcomers, but following the links will lead you to eventually understand. I've only been here about three months and at first felt overwhelmed by it all, but its starting to make sense.

Launching a new product must be very difficult and I wish you luck. Feel free to ask any questions you might have. --killing sparrows 07:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand, Thanks. There are several reviews in process right now. Since there are few creditible sources who specialize in board game reviews, it takes some time for trials to be worked in to the individual schedules and for reviews to be published. Is it possible to know how long an article is held for consideration before it is deleted? I am expecting to have creditible sources of notability in place soon and to have the interest of neutral parties who can edit and add/subtract information within the basic article. These activities would be difficult if the article is deleted. Juxtapono 14:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The review process usually lasts about 5 days and 99.9% of all articles that are deleted are done so 'without prejudice, so to speak. This means that the article can be recreated in the same way the original article was created. Simply create the page. In a few instances, usually in cases of repeated creation of 'attack pages,' those which attack or defame a person, they are 'salted,' as in, Delete and salt the earth in which it was planted, which prevents that title from being recreated. Very rare.

I believe, but I'm not sure, that deleted articles are still somewhere on the servers but I have no idea how one would access them. I would simply copy the article now and save it as a text file somewhere to use as a reference for any future recreation.

I would highly advise having someone else write any future article. Even then, and with an independent review, it would probably come up for deletion, new things have a hard time with good reason as Wikipedia is not for promotion. An alternative, when there are independent reviews, might be a mention of the game in an already existing article. There are 'lists of sudoko-like games' in the Sudoko article, many have their own entry although I would say most, if not all should be deleted. If you were to simply add it now, it would most likely be deleted by an editor, again Wikipedia is not for advertising. Links to outside sites are monitored pretty closely and ruthlessly deleted!

I have to say that I think it very unlikely an article on the game would pass another deletion review unless the game became wildly popular in a short time. I myself would probably recommend deletion as I feel that WP should be a collection of knowledge, not facts. There are countless 'babies' born everyday, while all are no doubt unbearably cute in the eyes of their 'parents,' few are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you could arrange for someone to commit some lurid and distasteful crime that somehow involved the game, well that would (unfortunatly) be a near guarantee of inclusion ;)

I am taking the time to explain this all because I want to promote Wikipedia and to create a positive impression of WP, some people who have been around a long time are rather uncivil in their comments to newcomers which I feel does nothing to improve WP. I hope that you will come away from this with a positive feeling about WP regardless of the outcome for your article. I also hope you will find other ways to contribute, there are many things that need to be done here that do not require expertise. Good luck!--killing sparrows 16:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles histories still exist on the server but they are inaccessable to the general public. Any article that has existed in the past can be restored by the administrators. The deletion review process at WP:DRV is generally the place to take requests to have an article undeleted. Typically requests are taken there when an AfD debate ends in an out-of-process fashion and someone feels that the closing administrator made an incorrect judgement, although occasionally requests are made because new information has become available that might change the debate outcome.

I think the best bet in this sort of situation would, however, be to simply start anew once enough information has become available rather than try to have the content here undeleted. ALternatively, you can try archiving the information elsewhere and recreating the article at a later time - if doing so be careful that the new information is obvious lest someone view it as a simple repost and have it speedily deleted. Arkyan  ^(talk) 04:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]