Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clandestine 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clandestine MUD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Acceptable sources were requested one year ago (April 2010) and they were never added. Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Delete. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not locate any further sources for this mud, and find The Mud Connector to be weak in terms of our standards of reliability (WP:RS). Marasmusine (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to consider the Mud Connector MOTM as contributing to notability, but it wouldn't suffice by itself in any event. The only other citation is first-party. I've tried repeatedly to find better sourcing for this article with no results. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Mud Connector is very useful to MUDders (I've been playing MUDs for over a decade) but I would only consider it reliable if used in conjunction with another reference. Considering the target audience, and that the MOTM only ran for a few months (the MOTM page states it was discontinued for 'lack of interest') I would consider this a very weak source of notability, if at all. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2011 (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.