Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctic MUD (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There were a lot of non-policy based arguments putforward for keeping this but no reliable non trivial sourcing was found to effectively refute the delete arguments, which were solidly based on policy. The clear consensus is that this does not have adequate sourcing to allow it to be retained Spartaz Humbug! 04:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic MUD

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Arctic MUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any reliable secondary sources to support this article. Appears to fail WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Note that I have removed two references. One to dragonlance-movie.com, where it was merely included in a directory of related sites without any commentry (indeed, one can "suggest a site for listing"). The second to dl3e.com, where the information seems to have been taken down (and the site doesn't look like WP:RS anyway). There are no hits for this game in our videogames RS custom google search. I would guess that the best bet for coverage is in Dragon magazine or suchlike, if at all. But articles ought to be based on such sources in the first instance. Marasmusine (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thousands of mentions on Usenet including the The Historical DikuMUD List If I'm not mistaken it's now the 2nd longest running DikuMud. Jlambert (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah, I see. Did you know about our guidelines on self-published sources? A Usenet post is only going to be acceptable if the author has a prior publishing history Marasmusine (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines as their purpose is to prevent controversial theories being promoted by crank authors. The article was regularly published publicly on Usenet for 9 continuous years by a well-respected member of the mud community (not affiliated with Arctic Mud) and later in 2003 on the official DikuMud site. That is why I vote KEEP. Jlambert (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It's not rolling in coverage or anything, but the public contribution documented in the r.g.m.d FAQ is good, and between the other three items I think keeping it is justified. I don't know how far Jlambert's logic can be taken, since any nonsense can generate buzz within its own enthusiast community (not that I'm not sure whether having articles on ridiculously niche topics is worse than using "was considered worthy of notice by mass media businesses that exist to line the pockets of specific rich white men" as the standard), but the Historical DikuMUD list at least was obviously conscientiously curated. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Usenet is mentioned repeatedly in the WP:RS talk archives as an example of a source not to use. But it doesn't matter, as again you've managed to find published verification, chaos. Can you confirm the "significance" of the coverage? If it's just a couple of sentences, then it is a candidate for merge/redirect. Marasmusine (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some language in guideline docs supporting using FAQs, as opposed to random posts, isn't there? And the Historical DikuMUD List is published on the original DikuMUD team's official site, for whatever that's worth. The book-published stuff is nothing much; as I mentioned in my comment, Internet Games Directory just has a mudlist entry (verifies codebase, that's about it). Internet After Hours has nothing really except a screenshot — I don't actually know how to interpret that in terms of trivial/substantial coverage, come to think of it. (Is a picture actually worth a thousand words?) —chaos5023 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Directory listings don't offer much - my local fish & chip shop is in a business directory (and no doubt gets "hundreds of visitors a week" which is a common kind of claim of notability for online games) but there's no way it would be included in an encyclopedia. If the concensus is that this is a MUD worth mentioning, then I recommend doing so at the DikuMUD and List of MUDs articles. I'd like to see some more !votes yet though. Marasmusine (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it comes down to the FAQ, to me. If we may treat the rec.games.mud.diku FAQ as a reliable source, then I'd call it a keep. If not, then I'd call it a delete. I found the document I was thinking of regarding FAQs: WP:RSE speaks of "Usenet [being] typically only a reliable source with respect to specific FAQs [...]". I don't know what "specific" FAQs means, since no list is in evidence; perhaps we're supposed to simply be evaluating whether a given FAQ is patent nonsense or what. I don't think there's anything wrong with the r.g.m.d FAQ that would make it fail a test any other reasonable, well-curated FAQ would pass, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no one has yet shown a single reliable source for any of this information. Unfortunately the nature of wikipedia makes verifiability through sources a must. Ridernyc (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's just not true. I've added from two to four (depending on interpretation of language in WP:RSE regarding Usenet FAQs and what status you assign the DikuMUD team's web site) reliable source references to the article. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Until there is something more concrete out there beside it appearing on Usenet (which there is no way to verify this as I cannot access any of this), then I'm afraid I have to agree with the nom here. –MuZemike 02:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, what is going on here? Are people just consistently writing !votes without looking at the article? There are two book references, and of the two things that have anything to do with Usenet, one is sourced from faqs.org and the other from dikumud.com. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously as others have pointed out Usenet is not a valid source. And many of the book sources seem to not actually be about this MUD, one is an internet games directory which does nothing to establish notability. The other is using it as an example to demonstrate software. None of this establishes notability, none of it is about this mud. Also please move on from repeatedly pointing to a FAQ as a source to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't happen to feel that the book sources demonstrate notability, but they certainly aren't zero reliable sources and a total absence of verifiability as is being claimed, either. You also seem to be laboring under a complete misapprehension that an entire book has to be about the MUD in order to contribute here, which is simply wrong. Your directive that I should just "move on" from using the r.g.m.d FAQ as a source, without any hint of actually addressing or clarifying the language in WP:RSE that potentially supports using it as a source, is inappropriate and patronizing. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSE is an essay not a guideline or a policy. Once again we need independent published sources that have substantial coverage of the subject. Trying to justify not having proper sourcing for this will get you nowhere. Ridernyc (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay that attempts to document researched consensus rather than a single POV or a top-down legalistic behavioral prescription, and I'd like to see that addressed rather than blithely blown off because the document doesn't have a magical status. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am awaiting a reply on the RSE talk page regarding what is meant by "specific FAQs", but the context appears to be when writing about Usenet itself. Marasmusine (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. That'd be good to have clear in general. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay it has no bearing, not to mention it has been inactive for at least 2 years. You would need to ignore multiple policies against self published sources to allow anything from usenet. Ridernyc (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although appears there is no notable out-of-internet preferences, would prefer to keep it. It is, as listed in references, one of those few remaining active DikuMUDs (for some 18 years so far). If kept for this, might need some edits to emphasis it's history and why it is among those active DikuMUDs still. lav (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we should just totally ignore policy because it has been around for a long time? Ridernyc (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable to say that verifiable longevity in an online game like this is a valid contributing factor to notability. I, myself, would not go so far as to say that it establishes notability by itself. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The only even vague claim of notability is that it's been running awhile, but yet it's far from the first MUD (they go back to the 70s) or even the first DikuMUD, so that claim is extremely weak at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment God, y'know, screw all this courtroom drama about whether the evidence is admissible since it's tainted by Usenet cooties: the fact is that Arctic MUD developers publicly contributed a popular and useful socket code patch that corrected a common problem in DikuMUDs, anybody can check this by looking at the rec.games.mud.diku FAQ on faqs.org, there's no reason to suspect any chicanery in any of this, and it's not like this is some kind of crank assertion that we must have Authority From On High to call upon in order to let it in the door. Further, I assert that this fact is a meaningful indicator toward notability; I personally think that that plus the three passing mentions plus the longevity factor add up to enough notability to work with. If not, whatever, I'm just sick of the cooties arguments. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, a Usenet group is not a reliable source (there's huge precedent on this) and secondly the developers writing a "useful" patch to correct an error in the host program doesn't affect the notability of Arctic MUD itself at all, which is what we're discussing here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, of course, Usenet bad, mainstream media good, whatever. Maybe it's time to set some new precedents, because that FAQ is a perfectly solid document. The other thing you're saying is nonsensical. Of course public code contributions by Arctic MUD developers, acting as Arctic MUD developers, and recognition thereof is a factor in the notability of Arctic MUD, the same as press coverage of the actions of a Disney employee acting as a Disney employee is a factor in the notability of Disney. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to visit the talk page at WP:RS and try to get policy changed. Until then I recommend finding reliable published sources for this article. Your ranting about newsgroups is accomplishing nothing here. Ridernyc (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the place to change notability policy is in individual AfDs like this one, since policy is a codification of consensus and this is where consensus on notability is worked out one article at a time. Policy is not decided legalistically and legislatively at a central location and then pushed down from on high, it develops organically from the bottom up. So what we decide here may potentially one day become an element of policy, but pushing me off to try to change policy centrally as if that's how it worked is, um, incorrect. Welcome to Wikipedia, please enjoy your stay and return the seat back to its fully upright and locked position. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not suggesting changing notability policy, you're suggesting (rather ridiculously) changing reliable sourcing policy, and the correct place to do that is at WP:RS. AFD's are for discussing the deletion of the article at hand, and repeatedly digressing to rant about RS policy is disruptive. Personally I'd say your chance of getting Wikipedia to consider usenet a relible source despite years of precedent to the contrary is about on par with my chance of perishing in a tragic Godzilla attack on the moon, but you can try if you want to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "hey, a factor in the notability of this topic is this thing that happened" and you say "oh, you can't say that because of Usenet cooties", commentary on the validity of the Usenet cooties argument is not a digression. Has anyone even noticed that the sources for these documents are faqs.org and dikumud.com? —chaos5023 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried educating you and giving you advice based on my five plus years of working on Wikipedia, mush of that time spent in AFD and in writing notability guidelines. If you choose to ignore advice than there is no further reason to carry on a conversation. Ridernyc (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I was trying to AGF by interpreting your advice as based on ignorance or confusion. If that's your background, then it's hard to see a recommendation that I run off and try to change policy centrally and top-down as other than willfully disingenuous, sending me off on a snipe hunt. Cute. I imagine you're right that there's no point in going on, though. As I said, I think that if one isn't going to accept the r.g.m.d FAQ as a source, that calls for the article's deletion, and clearly you aren't, so there we go. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this argument is unnecessary - let's clarify what the usenet posts say. The DikuMUD List is exactly that. It just tells us Artic's year and location. The FAQ, as far as I can tell, mentions Arctic once with regards the authors. Isn't this information in the two book sources anway? (Maybe I'm wrong) If so, this passionate exchange seems redundant to me. Marasmusine (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the book sources don't include any dating information, so AFAIK that's only sourced from the Historical DikuMUD List, but otherwise that's accurate. I have been interpreting the FAQ content (the discussion of the patch and the patch itself) as amounting to non-trivial coverage of Arctic MUD, which it does seem like to me, considering the entire thing as an Arctic MUD contribution to the public. But if that's not really justified, then we're left with four trivial references and perhaps a vague idea of longevity meaning something, which doesn't add up to notability to my way of thinking. Sounds like you don't take the FAQ content for substantial coverage of the topic? —chaos5023 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I strongly recommend you retract your unwarranted attacks on Ridernyc, those were uncalled for. Also, if the FAQ you've been desperately trying to get us to consider a reliable source is this one, then it doesn't really mention Arctic MUD at all, it just says to thank "Dean Gaudet and Jeffery Stine of ArcticMud for the socket patch" and that's it. Seriously. Even if it were a reliable source (and it's still not) it says literally nothing about the topic of this AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks? Bit strong, don't you think? In any event, I believe I shall call a spade a WP:SPADE while it appears to be one to me; I note your bald assertion of unwarranted behavior did not or could not provide an alternate explanation for an experienced Wikipedian sending someone with an opposing viewpoint in a debate on what he or she, in order to have the experience he or she has claimed, has to know to be a fool's errand. As to the rest, my point has been and remains that that acknowledgement means that the patch and language relating to it are documenting a public code contribution Arctic MUD made, and therefore are relevant to Arctic MUD and its notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure directing someone who wants to change policy to the proper forum to attempt to have that policy changed is a fools errand. I mean what was I thinking. Ridernyc (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting an editor who is only helping you by directing you to the correct venue for your request is an attack, certainly. You were clealy informed that the chances of such a policy change being accepted by the community is virtually impossible. There was no cause to attack the editor trying to help you. Besides, this is all a bit moot since the FAQ in question has been examined and doesn't even mention Arctic MUD aside from a brief thank-you message to two developers who wrote a short piece of code to patch an error. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from article creator. I created this a number of years ago as a newish editor and didn't include any indicators of notability. It was deleted. At the time I believe Arctic MUD was ranked in the top 10 MUDs by notable MUD site The MUD Connector and also Top MUD Sites (which both actively vet entries). Arctic had a short paragraph written about it on the official Dragonlance Nexus (which sadly seems to be a broken link now) and was referenced on the official Dragonlance movie site, which back in those days was together sufficient evidence of notability for the admin that deleted the original version to allow me to recreate it. As for now...it's a tricky one. The piece on the Nexus is gone and Arctic's rankings have changed. However as notability is not temporary I'd still say Keep. It's a shame we can't find more published references, but it's difficult with something this old and in a genre that is dying out so is not featured in modern publications that are readily available online. I have a vague memory of seeing Arctic discussed in a 1990s gaming publication, but I have no clue as to which one or when, so that doesn't help. I did note that in recent years Arctic was one of the 10 "featured" MUDs in Zuggsoft's zMUD client. Not sure whether that is significant or not. Cheers, Wiw8 (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I attempted dead link rescue of http://www.dl3e.com/community/links/category.aspx?id=14, but archive.org has never heard of it. I also don't see any particular indication that dl3e.com is "official" in any regard; looks more like a fansite to me. TMS and TMC rankings are fundamentally affiliate internet traffic metrics, aren't reliable and don't have any encyclopedic value; they shouldn't even be included in articles, much less used for notability determinations. Being a featured MUD in zMUD is a paid advertising placement, so not helpful. I don't think the argument that notability is not temporary is helpful, because in order for it to be relevant, the topic would have to have ever met current notability standards, which doesn't seem to be the case. It's really unfortunate that you can't remember any leads on that 1990s gaming publication appearance, because if it could be found, it would be far and away the best contribution to notability on hand. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Things have changed in the intervening period. dl3e.com used to be the URL of the Dragonlance Nexus which I believe was set up and run in association with many of the DL authors and endorsed by WotC. It was the place to turn for official news on upcoming publications and so on. However, what was once dl3e has now moved to another domain (sadly they also re-did the site when they moved - I can't find that link even on the new site) and dl3e is now just an unofficial fansite. Nonetheless I agree that we are still rather thin on decent coverage. Yeah, that 1990s mag is bugging me something chronic. Shame your Net Games 2 find didn't have more info in it - got me excited for a moment! Well done on the find anyway though. Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - references given do not support the general notability guideline. No problem with recreation should notability/significant coverage be proven via reliable print/web sources. The first source, Internet Games Directory, is summarized as "This book includes descriptions of Web sites where readers can find the hottest online real-time games, in addition to how-to and strategy guides, non-real-time, proprietary, e-mail and listserv games" at amazon.com, which sounds more like a list, verifying it exists, but significant coverage is definitely dubious. Internet After Hours does not provide significant coverage, as evidenced by the prose. Sources 4 and 5 are identical in their content, and again only lists the MUD. If it went further on it being one of the oldest I'd say it could help establish notability, but it's just a list, and the reliability of the source is questionable anyway. The remaining source is a FAQ, which most definitely wouldn't provide significant coverage. Print sources may exist, and I would recommend those wanting to keep the article visit their local library and bookstores to find significant coverage in books, which may be more likely. Should the article be deleted, those sources would be very useful should someone choose to request it to be undeleted. --Teancum (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You already !voted. :) Shouldn't you supplement your first entry instead of making another? —chaos5023 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Print sources are not looking so hot, by the way. I have a lot of MUD books, and I looked for Arctic in a bunch of them; nothing. It seems to have gotten prominent in the MUD community just when the wave of people writing about MUDs in books, in 1995 and 1996, was dying down. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Though there is another trivial mudlist reference in Secrets of the MUD Wizards. Which is five trivial references in print sources, three of which are currently cited. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on By leveling up my google-fu I have found a lead on a new print reference, in Net Games 2, which I have at home. More as it happens. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Great defeat. Net Games 2 has another damnable trivial mention, one sentence and a URL where most games get a multiple paragraph review. Incidentally, I also found a mention in a professional journal, c.f. this Google Books result which apparently contains the snippet "Various design approaches have been developed to provide virtual world designers with a set of design principles and parameters Figure 1. An example of words used to describe a virtual world (ArcticMUD http:/lwww.arctic.orgl Last ...", but the preview refuses to actually display it, I don't really know what the hell to say about it that would make sense to include it in the article as a reference, and it seems like yet another trivial mention anyway. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've illustrated that your interpretation of the guidelines defies actual precedence and practice on Wikipedia. How many examples of articles using USENET as sources would it take? Jlambert (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's really true. It seems to me that any editor may argue here that they believe a given reference should be considered as contributing to or establishing notability irrespective of externalities, and if they present a coherent argument as to why that should be the case then the closing admin may, and IMO should, take that into account in their close. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although note that the two examples Jlambert gave are for topics that are directly associated with Usenet: it is being used as a primary source which is permitted if the secondary sources are strong enough. Marasmusine (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really believe the Tanenbaum–Torvalds_debate is about USENET? Jlambert (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that makes sense as far as that goes. I wouldn't argue that it'd ever make sense to treat Usenet posts in general as reliable or as signifying anything for notability purposes; what I'm saying is that a reasonable, well-curated FAQ, especially one that predates Wikipedia's existence, is a "big enough deal" that coverage in it should contribute to notability. This implies some assignment of reliability, though I would imagine no more than that given a newspaper article, i.e. if the FAQ states that the atomic number of oxygen is 7, we may safely disregard that as a simple error. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policy states the and endless debates establish that Usenet is not an acceptable source.

If you don't like that change policy. Once again debating this point here is useless. Ridernyc (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states no such thing. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SELFPUBLISH Usenet is self published it is no different then trying use a blog, a forum post or any other type of self published unreliable source. Once again if you disagree with this change policy. Until then stop trying to weasel around the fact that Usenet is not an acceptable source to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, except your common or garden variety Usenet FAQ has little resemblance to the sort of publications being discussed there. FAQs, just by their nature, were subject to ongoing review and criticism by the maintainer or maintainers' peers, and were generally evolving and cumulatively refined documents that reflected a community consensus. By and large they can and should be taken seriously. Obviously you couldn't care less, but somebody ought to say it. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome to think but they are self published. Not to mention if if we were to accept these sources they still are not enough to prove notability. Even if we accept every single source and tiny mention you have found none of them even come close to establishing notability. Ridernyc (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to dismiss them as "self-published" despite their lack of every issue that policy on self-publication is meant to avoid, that seems like the kind of obdurate legalistic application of the wording of rules, to the detriment of the purpose of those rules, that WP:IAR is there to prevent. And while these "tiny mentions" have to be added up in order to amount to anything, I still contend that the r.g.m.d FAQ's documentation of Arctic MUD's code contribution amounts to non-trivial coverage, and nobody has addressed this contention other than by talking around it in an "I didn't hear that, it only said the MUD's name once so it can't be anything to do with the MUD" fashion. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it isn't in the New York Times or talked about on MSNBC doesn't mean that it isn't important. There's an awful lot of literal crud here on this site that you'd be hard pressed to find even a single person today knows about that should have been deleted years ago. Yet once again you're focusing a hell of a lot of attention on dismantling more internet history because the very medium it takes place on didn't keep a 10 year old article around for someone to find. All this rules lawyering over the subject is just plain ridiculous. Samson (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there's several straw-man arguments there as well as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. "Dismlantling internet history" isn't relevant as we only record what has already been published. If you want a specialist MUD encyclopdia that uses personal opinion/research or sources of any quality, you are more than welcome to start one. Marasmusine (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as one of the longest-running DikuMUDs, and for its contribution to the DikuMUD codebase. A little slim on sources, but it is at least mentioned in print. Muds predate the WWW, and magazines prefer printing screenshots of graphics rather than text, so it can be difficult to find old sources outside of usenet. However muds have had a huge impact on modern-day gaming, with DikuMUD providing direct inspiration for numerous MMOs, so I'm rather concerned to see so many attempts to scrub them from Wikipedia history. KaVir (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ArticMUD has had mentions in print media in the hey-day of MUDs and at the dawn of the internet. It is extremely well-known in its own genre, and the article on it is not inaccurate. This would be like removing a once well-known fad simply because it isn't currently popular anymore. We have seem how easy it is for some people to try to whittle away at each single source until somehow, every source available is either not notable itself, a conflict of interest, or simply "unacceptable". This kind of thing damages of off Wikipedia and the more casual people who spend time on it. Kallimina (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That line of thinking is recognized and supported in Wikipedia's "Notability is not temporary" concept. The difficulty is in establishing what was around before. I don't suppose you remember anything that would help find these print media mentions? —chaos5023 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think it's actually mentioned in a few gaming magazines that are actually defunct, which makes it difficult to find them. I have to call the library and have them help me search. Kallimina (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note off-site discussions at mudbutes.net and arctic.org, some of it reasonable. Someone mentioned Mudpedia, which is exactly what I was thinking of above. Kallimina, you're completely right in that we don't treat notability as temporary. A published source from any date will be helpful. Marasmusine (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marasmusine, I will start looking up some of the paper mentions via the library. A lot of the old sources can be found that way.64.253.96.96 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was me. Kallimina (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I applaud the offsite discussion for being (mostly) civil, but it has to be said that the fact that those closest to the subject have been asked for sources and haven't found any, and that further advances the now-obvious conclusion that there just plain aren't any suitable sources to be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arctic_MUD_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1082391211"