Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD)

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 keep all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AVATAR (MUD)[edit]

Note: I have removed the Gemstone nomination, as it clearly was in bad faith, or incorrectly researched.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC) No independent references or assertion of notability. Martijn Hoekstra 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep while I attempt to sort out notability. It currently is written as an advertisement. However, I recently came across a description of this very MUD (I'm pretty sure) in a scholarly text from 1999 - namely Patricia Wallace's The Psychology of the Internet, from Cambridge University Press. I do not have the text available at the moment, but I should be able to view it tomorrow and comment on it further. The description might be of an influential early MUD, or it might be peripheral. I'll have to see. Of course, there's also the possibility my recollection is mistaken. --Edwin Herdman 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was doing fine when this AfD was for a single title. However, lumping in a HUGE number of other AfDs with it will mean that they might not get the proper attention. Thankfully, Wikipedia is set up so that the AfDs will simply fail, but if you are serious about wanting to run an AfD on each single article, you should run them each separately, and preferably not all at once so that you have time to make a comprehensive case for each AfD. As noted at GemStone IV's entry below, GemStone IV is simply not an acceptable AfD candidate, in this user's opinion. --Edwin Herdman 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

say I'm also proposing the following MUDs for deletion for no notability and/or no independent refrences: More information may be found at WP:MMO/MU*

Has press coverage: was covered, years ago, in Pelit (or possibly MikroBitti, can't remember for sure). Likely not the only press bit either and it has, very likely, been covered elsewhere. One of the longest-running LPmuds in existence. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LegendMUD was originally co-implemented by Raph Koster. --Hobo Dave 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, LegendMUD is entirely unique due to the fact that each area and the majority of mobs in game are accurate portrayals and depictions of prominent and well respected literature. -- [Greystone]

Have rewritten. Article should now fulfill necessary critera. fluoronaut 12:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. LPMud is very notable and although Nightmare is now defunct, it was a notable example of LPMuds and a driving force in the genre. Not including Nightmare in the Wikipedia would be like excluding the Soviet Union because its now defunct. -- Hobo Dave 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the longest-running DikuMUDs/CircleMUDs in existence. The only mud ever to run at ibiblio, a significant site. Is also only surviving Ars Magica MUD according to Project:Redcap an online Ars Magica community. --Hobo Dave 22:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if perhaps somewhat uncomfortably. Huge group AfDs tend to be a bad idea unless the articles themselves are virtually identical, and these aren't. That said, I agree with the nominator's assertation that these have little-to-no claims of notability and lack independant references. In short, none of these would pass an individual AfD by our current standards, nor do they meet WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that statement. Marieblasdell's comment above, and mine, should be proof enough that moving towards a delete at this time of at least two of the articles here is unwise. I would like to move that the AfDs be broken down into individual ones. --Edwin Herdman 01:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All: Just on the Gemstone article alone - the oldest commercial MMORPG and a multiple award winner, which is asserted in the article - the nom's methodology is sloppy as hell. I'm not familiar with the other articles, but after the GS nomination I decline to take any blanket assertion of non-notability on faith. Nominate them independently and be prepared to defend the nominations independently. Ravenswing 02:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Beyond that, I've just taken a look at WP:MMO/MU*. From what I can see, this is a task force with exactly three members (including the nom) that is exactly five days old, and has categorized a great many games under Keep/Borderline/unacceptable, without seeming to have developed any criteria under which to make any such determination and in a seemingly random fashion ... for one example, listing GemStone IV for deletion while keeping DragonRealms, a similar game with similar longevity and a similar player base run by the same company. Ravenswing 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's correct. Martijn is the one responsible for adding all the items in this list; even within his group there does not appear to have been any other consensus that they should be added. So while there is a group, there is no apparent co-ordination of this project. That doesn't mean they couldn't have co-ordinated it outside Wikipedia (or that I missed something in the edit history, but that's unlikely), which is of course not good policy.

I think what's going on here isn't too sinister, though; Martijn had a very slight trouble (didn't put in the correct category tag, had "MU* games" which I replaced with "G" and it certainly looks cleaner than my first - and so far only - attempt at an AfD, and he might have decided that given how hard it was that it wouldn't hurt to put them all together. My comments on the unsuitability of this process is noted above, of course. --Edwin Herdman 02:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use the word "sinister," myself. Malicious, no. Careless and ill-considered, yes. Ravenswing 04:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All: This may be the stupidest AfD I have ever seen. LPMud is not notable? From about 1991-1996 it was the single largest base of mudding. And several of the muds mentioned for deletion are among the most significant examples of LPMud. Xinconnu 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The articles need to be considered separately, on their merits. As I, and other, have said above, the GemStone nomination alone is enough to cast doubt on the whole nomination. Marieblasdell 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all and relist seperately - You can't just lump all these together and claim they are ALL non-notable in a single AfD. I think this AfD should be speedily closed, and then each MU* re-listed seperately. But for the record, people who are saying 'X MUD is notable' prove it with reliable sources. DarkSaber2k 07:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apologies for ruffling of feathers. Although I was helping sorting through the MU* articles, I wasn't expecting any to be taken to AfD so quickly. We made a shortlist of articles we considered non-notable, but they shouldn't have been taken here without being double-checked first. Marasmusine 08:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. >Radiant< 10:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Did youa ctually look at all 30 articles that have been nominated for deletion here, or are you making a judgement call based on AVATAR?DarkSaber2k 10:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marasmusine: No sweat. There would be no problem if these AfDs were submitted separately, as noted before. In any case, I'm going to end up looking up a source today. --Edwin Herdman 10:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Individually some of these deletion nominations might be justified, as a group they definitely are not.--Caranorn 11:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Same as above. Van der Hoorn 11:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All As said, some of these subjects are definitely notable even if their articles are currently inadequate. Also, the Gemstone article and possibly some others have had references added since the AFD was placed. Propaniac 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any volunteers to look through all 30 nominations to see which have had sources added, and evaluate the reliability of any sources that have appeared, and then argue for those specific games here? This should AfD should be cancelled immediately before arguments for and against individual games turn this place into a train wreck. Remember, there's up to 30 articles that could be defended in this AfD. Good luck trying to keep the discussions seperate. DarkSaber2k 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All per the reasoning almost everybody else is saying. They are all separate articles and thus this is completely inappropriate. If this is meant as a serious nomination then I would suggest actually looking at each the articles and nominating the ones that make sense to nominate (rather than copy&paste from a category listing, or whatever it is that happened). --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Several of these MUDs (BatMUD, GemStone IV, LegendMUD, NannyMUD, Nightmare LPMUD, MajorMud, Materia Magica, and Tempora Heroica) are notable examples of MUD development and their inclusion is important to MUD history. If anything, the articles should be strengthened and expanded, not removed. Due to the nature of most MUDs, MUD history isn't well documented by print media and most came into being pre-WWW, so external references are difficult to come by. Often the best references for notability and historical signicance for MUDs is to be found in Usenet archives of the 1990s. --Hobo Dave 07:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, clearly overbroad nomination and blanket nominating them won't work. Some of these MUDs are notable (BatMUD, for example, has been subject to extensive press coverage a number of times). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of getting some of those citations on the article? Marasmusine 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's "any" chance. =) The thing is, I can't find the bit I'm looking for from Pelit website subscriber archive right now, but I'm assuming the online coverage of very old issues is not 100%. I really, really wish Wikipedia would have provisions for "the guy who does the sourcing must travel across half the country and comb through decade-old magazines (which, by the way, may not be at hand anyway) by hand" kind of things. But hey, if it's not in Google, it doesn't exist. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, overly broad nomination. Recommend withdrawing and relisting smaller numbers. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggest everyone read the second comment by Martijn here. The GemStone IV nomination was a mistake. I'm not sure why Martijn hasn't responded here, but he has on the talk page. The listing of all the AfDs at once was another mistake, in my view, but it was considered appropriate. When these listings come up again, please do not hold the project overseeing these nominations in low regard. It was a simple mistake, no skin off anybody's back. --Edwin Herdman 07:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is suggesting the deletion of a number of articles based purely on his own ignorance of the subject matter at hand. As someone else noted, most of the history on this particular subject is specifically covered in Usenet and pretty much nowhere else. Unless you want to suggest Muds as a whole are not notable (which I would argue is absurd), then relying on what you can find in Google as being the sole proof of noteworthiness is absurd. Xinconnu 14:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Martijn saying that he depended on Google, at least not in the Talk page or the MUD project page. Anyhow, what you've got it one of the fundamental issues with AfD. Some people think that if there aren't sufficient sources now and that if it doesn't seem likely that there will be that it should be nominated as non-notable, and thus it turns into cleanup on demand. I don't feel that way, of course. I've made my case that it's likely they were shoehorned in due to difficulty with the AfD process (of course, I don't support this as a reason). --Edwin Herdman 21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the selection the MUDs chosen for this AfD demonstrates a basic unfamiliarity with MUDs and their history. I think editoral comments such as "Awesome name, but no assertion of notability and no indepedent references." are indicative, especially when compared with the MUDs that were not placed on this list, of the subjectivity of this AfD. Those placed on borderline on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/MU* page could have been just as easily been placed on the AfD list. As I've noted above, many of these articles should be expanded and sourced, not deleted. RetroMUD is an example of a deleted MUD article that should have been instead expanded and sourced. --Hobo Dave 22:38 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of MUDs come from a period where information wasn't kept the way it is now, making historically significant MUDs as hard to source as non-notable ones, meaning a more careful look into individual ones would be much more beneficial. DarkSaber2k 23:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on Sociopolitical Ramifications MUCK ("Awesome name, but no assertion of notability and no indepedent references."); I was using WP:N and WP:V, and it is an awesome name. These comments were never intended to be reasoning for AfD, which was premature. Marasmusine 10:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have every intention of holding this project in low regard as long as they categorize MUDs without displaying any criteria upon which to make such judgments, and as long as they show as little feel for the games they judge as they do. For example, the Gemstone entry (now moved to their "Notable" list) says "References for Gemstone and Gemstone III; perhaps article should represent the whole series?" Mm, yes, if this was a Final Fantasy or Zelda series in which each game was a standalone, barely connected game instead of a single game with nearly two decades of unbroken character continuity. That Simutronics chooses to rename the game after major overhauls they wouldn't necessarily know; that they're assuming what the game's about without bothering to check is a significant downcheck against trusting their judgment. Ravenswing 07:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria being used was WP:N and WP:V. I intended the list to be pretty rough, to help prioritize where attention was needed. As for Gemstone IV, that's why I checked on the article's talk page; no edits to the article were done, and I can see now where I to III fit in. Sorry you feel my judgement is off.Marasmusine 10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All. Editor attempted to prod an article, I removed the prod, asked for feedback and/or further explanation as to what was wrong with the article (see MajorMUD) and received no feedback, just this AFD. As I said on the talk page at MajorMUD: we don't delete bad or poorly written articles, we make them better. Further, the notability guidelines don't really have any guidance for MUDs; these were text-based games of the 80's and 90's, and it's not like Time magazine ran articles on them. I'm not supporting totally unverifiable articles, but mass deletion is equally unacceptable to me. On a side note, I was very tempted to close this early myself, but refrained. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:31, 27 May 2007 (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.