Talk:4X/Archive 1

message: I'm leaving this article because it's getting too contentious. Here's my stance. Feel free to take it or leave it.
WP:N is primarily what I'm discussing. Philcha has stated that 11 articles help to establish notability. I strongly contend that. Most of the sources are not reliable sources as per WP:RS. DeafGamers is not "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." DeafGamers does not have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." IGN, GameSpy, GameSpot, CGW, these are reliable sources.
There is the interview with the guy who coined the term. Is it independant? Maybe. They were doing this interview with this guy who used this "4X" term so they figured they should let him define it. Substantial coverage? maybe. While I'm willing to say that we should let that count, WP:N states "sources" in the requirement, and later "Multiple sources are preferred." I don't think that that one source is enough to establish notability. Do we have an argument for notability? Yes. Is the topic clearly notable? Definitely not. Can we improve this? Yes.
Other genres get full treatment in articles, I referenced RTS above. I'm not asking for a different standard, I'm merely asking that the wikipedia guidelines be considered.
There has been some discussion about the use of the term. Use of the term is part of Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, and shouldn't really be discussed in Wikipedia, while several sources use the term, it is not in widespread use. The Civilization article has the 4x appelation, put there by anons, But as far as I can tell, none of the reviews I could find really refer to the game as a 4X game. Not even for the most recent civ3. Sure, some developers use it, but it's not universally used to describe the genre.
Admittedly, this is OR, but none of my gamer friends had even heard the term, most of whom have played a lot of 4x games. I loved MOO, and have played quite a bit. But I hadn't heard the term before I saw the Wikipedia article on it. I think that if this article were put up on AFD, that there would be a large majority of people (even gamers) who would mention that they hadn't heard the term.  Whether they say it's notable or not is a different story, but I think it stands a decent chance of getting deleted on AFD.
Should the topic be in wikipedia? I'm not sure. I go back and forth on it. It reeks of neologism, some people use it, but not many. It's not widely used. Is it a useful term. Yes. I'm probably going to even use it from here on out, but being useful doesn't mean it's notable.
But does the article deserve the notability tag? Yeah, I think it does. Articles get the notability tag when they don't properly assert their notability. (Booster Juice clearly doesn't meet the notability criterion, and the article remains while the information gets added.)
What I'm not a fan of is people saying "there is no justification" for the tag, or that I'm trying to push an agenda, or that I'm on a crusade, or that I'm holding this article to different standards than others, or saying that putting the tag on is "Stupid" or "Bureaucratic", or calling my actions "trolling". I'm trying to make Wikipedia better. This article has improved because I put that tag up, and I'm being the one criticised here.
Have fun. McKay 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good riddance. A term like 4X is notable, not because there's a top-down authoritative book on it, but because it's common vocabulary. The fact that the term is used by the creator of a 4X franchise is just a bonus. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 69.158.140.52 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mckaysalisbury's position