User talk:Raisinbrainguy

Tumblr-4Chan Raids of 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia! Regarding the page Tumblr-4Chan Raids of 2014 that you created, something that's not necessarily intuitive is that we work from secondary sources. In essence, an encyclopedia like Wikipedia will not directly mention every single event from 4chan, Tumblr, etc. (which are primary sources for the event), but will instead describe the event through how secondary sources (like the first journal article you cite) discuss it. That first source is good, and, if more like this one are found, the topic would likely be notable, as these are the sources we use to write articles. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Due to me being super new to this website, it's nice that I got feedback! My plans honestly is to add more to the Gamergate controversy (and maybe the (Top), if so), while I'll make "Background" shorter. Raisinbrainguy (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of hard to find other secondary sources like the first journal one however. The closest I got was https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/2014-tumblr-4chan-raids. Raisinbrainguy (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sadly knowyourmeme isn't considered especially reliable. If there aren't other secondary sources, the article might not be notable,^[a] which in itself isn't a horrible thing – it just means it can be merged to a wider article, especially since you already have one solid source.

Regarding the Gamergate part, I wouldn't really expand it if secondary sources don't make the connection about it actually having an impact there. It's pretty easy to be a member on one of these forums and make claims about how one post played a decisive role in a much wider controversy, which is why we prefer to stay with what reliable secondary sources say. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Our definition of notable is, as a first approximation, "are there multiple reliable secondary sources that talk about it", which maps less with the real-world definition of notability and more with how feasible it is to write an encyclopedia article.

I did some edits on the Tumblr-4chan raids page. I also got struck by the "edit source" reply bug... oh well! Hopefully I didn't screw anything up. Anyways, I removed some of the "Background" parts. Raisinbrainguy (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the time of my release of that reply. Alright, I think this page is good now. Raisinbrainguy (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of World's Worst Boardgame for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World's Worst Boardgame is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's Worst Boardgame until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Our definition of notable is, as a first approximation, "are there multiple reliable secondary sources that talk about it", which maps less with the real-world definition of notability and more with how feasible it is to write an encyclopedia article.

[a]