Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IfMUD (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IfMUD[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent (secondary) sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in video game reliable sources and Google Books searches. There are no useful leads, merge targets, or worthwhile redirect targets. czar 21:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 21:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not certain that this topic is non-notable, but if it is, it should probably be merged to XYZZY Award. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having discovered that Montfort's material on ifMUD in Twisty Little Passages was not limited to a "thanks" type mention (clarification of this being new since the AfD's initiation), and considering that Granade's piece may be considered to contribute due to his status as a subject matter expert, I'm inclined to say this one squeaks by the GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But those quotes are quite literally the definition of passing mentions... they do not go into any depth about the subject matter. If anything it shows that there should be a section on competition within interactive fiction or one of its sub-articles. czar 02:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well... no. Montfort's throwaway quote, "I also appreciate the many conversations I have had about interactive fiction topics with friends from an enjoyable and topical online community, ifMUD." is the definition of a passing mention. The other two contain, y'know, information. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montfort, Nick (2005-04-01). Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction. The MIT Press. pp. 209–210. ISBN 0-262-63318-3. In general, mini-comps have functioned more like theme issues of a journal than like contests. Another sort of contest was inaugurated in October 1998 by David Cornelson, who had authors on ifMUD (a virtual environment for socializing among those in the IF community) engage in "SpeedIF." Participants created very small IF works within a time limit of one hour (the time limit later became two hours) based on a selection of unusual topics, characters, and items that were volunteered online. The results were uploaded for the "competitors," and anyone else, to enjoy. SpeedIF, occurring irregularly and often decided upon spontaneously, has also become a tradition. Although the focus on competition as a metaphor—even in noncompetitive events—may seem unusual, the many sorts of competitions that have transpired in recent years (including some for interactive fiction in other languages) have had clear benefits for the community.

It's more about the writing of interactive fiction than anything substantively about how the MUD, but I've already made my point. Adding up everything you were able to cull for this source, we have, at most, a paragraph of miscellaneous information, which isn't what we'd call significant coverage. We really should be looking at making lists/glossaries of MUD topics instead of standalone barebones like this, which end up just being cursory information instead of encyclopedia articles. czar 02:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2016 (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.