Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DartMUD (3rd 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 delete. Further discussion after my relist reinforced the delete consensus. Serious discussion was had around whether there existed a viable alternative to deletion through a redirect/merge. However, there is a consensus that the proposed target does not have a strong connection to be a viable redirect target and that deletion is the consensus outcome of this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DartMUD[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write an encyclopedic article on the topic without resorting to original research. (Being mentioned by Raph Koster as influential could the basis for mentioning in another article, perhaps, but doesn't give any content with which we can write a dedicated article, i.e., significant coverage.) It had no substantive additional coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as our List of MUDs only lists games with their own articles. czar 05:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 05:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Primary and tertiary sources are given, but neither adds to notability. There seemingly no significant secondary sources to speak of. Apart from Google Books, WP:VG/RS has just one hit, which is in a comment section under an unrelated article. IceWelder [✉] 10:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not being notable. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 04:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pinged by the bot. I've not been affiliated with this MUD in years, but none of the arguments in the 2nd AfD are addressed in the nom or the delete votes here: At the time in the 1990s it was a thing, this MUD did a couple of innovative things that influenced other MMOs, and the article notes that with appropriate WP:SPS of statements to that effect by an industry expert (Raph Koster) that meet our sourcing guidelines. WP:NTEMP means that even though it's likely a dwindling number of a dying breed, it got coverage that meets the WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you listed as having a conflict of interest on this article's talk page?

Wikipedia's notability criteria is more stringent today than it was a decade ago at the last AfD. What sourcing are you referencing that "meets the GNG", in specific? Koster's comments are literally passing mentions in the linked sources. czar 06:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a few years in the early 2000's, long before I was anyone special on Wikipedia, DartMUD lived in my house, about 4' from where I currently sit. Those days are long gone, and I haven't been an active coder there for, um, 15 years? I was surprised to see that as well, because I didn't add it--some IP address did, apparently from the date and associated invective, around the time that I was being drummed out of the functionary/admin corps. Whatever.

I really doubt notability requirements have changed sufficiently that the 2nd AfD result would not be valid under the current guidelines. I just reread WP:SPS and it still talks about recognized expert blogs, etc. being useful for establishing notability. For kicks and giggles, here's one that's a bit too meta to put in the article [1]. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might try Googling "dartmud site:raphkoster.com" to see what he has listed on his own site; I think there are about 4-6 non-redundant mentions, in different articles there, at least one of which is another article on Wikipedia Notability and MUDs. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A borderline WP:CSD#G11, and I as an uninvolved admin would have deleted it if it were tagged that way before it was brought here. If it was a thing, show me third-party reliable sources, even if they're offline. Because I can't find them online. And even if they exist, this article would need to be gutted and completely rewritten from scratch to get rid of all the advertising. Worthy of note, self-published sources do not establish notability. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're an admin? Then you're familiar with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions, right? And you're aware that WP:SPS by a recognized expert, which Koster is, is an RS for all uses? Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - Very much so. Doesn't change the fact this page is written like an advertisement and would be eligible for deletion on that basis. Doesn't change the fact that a nine year old AFD didn't think this was advertising when it so blatantly is - how Wikipedia has changed in that amount of time. Furthermore, a reliable source does not mean notability is established. I want you to think very hard on what you're arguing, here. So, if I ran a website, I could claim someone notable said something about my site, and publish it on my site. And maybe they did say it. But now I'm establishing my own notability. That's not what notability is. Notability is significant coverage in third-party reliable sources independent of the subject. Don't mix up having a reliable source talk about the subject with establishment of notability, a mistake almost all of the "Keep" voters made in the second AFD. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. The high POV issues on the page would most likely qualify for WP:TNT, even if it were notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguably there is already a delete consensus, but relisting given the keep unanimity of the previous nomination (even if it was 9 years ago).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LPMud and add a mention there. As noted by several here, this was an influential mud, and while the article is probably not worth keeping in its current form, The LPMud article would benefit from a short summary of this content. CThomas³ (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With what secondary source for that claim? czar 07:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it need to be secondary? CThomas³ (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because we haven’t actually established this is a notable MUD at all. Anything published on DartMUD’s site is reliable SPS coverage for establishing facts in line with the guideline, but does not establish notability of DartMUD itself. Bottom line: if DartMUD is notable, it would be talked about in reliable sources outside of DartMUD’s website. If it isn’t, it’s not even notable for a mention in the encyclopedia at all. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's the wrong standard to apply: if we were to establish this a notable MUD, we would be able to close this AfD as keep. The standard is far lower to be mentioned in another article. We have an industry expert's claim that DartMUD was a significant contributor to the genre; that was enough for a snow-keep nine years ago, and I would posit it's enough to justify a short mention on another article today. If you're saying that every single fact on Wikipedia needs to be attributed to a secondary source, we've got a lot of work to do, as there are probably hundreds of millions of them that fail that particular test. CThomas³ (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noteworthiness, not notability. To your question, we base articles on secondary sources. Primary and self-published expert sources are used for filling in the cracks, not writing the basis for the article. Second, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If this game is influential, let's see a single secondary source print it. What you propose is a single sentence mention of DartMUD currently sourced to a blog post by Koster in which he offhandedly says he would have chosen DartMUD among others as canonical influences. It's a personal preference and has nothing to do with LPMud, the target you recommended. re: secondary sourcing, yes, there's a lot of work to do and no, I would not read into a brigaded AfD from nine years ago as having any weight. Mind that Koster himself wrote over a decade ago about better preserving MUD history. That no one has answered that call for this MUD either in that decade or prior should be an indication of how MUD scholars regard its noteworthiness. czar 05:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I agree that secondary sources are preferred when available, and certainly they are required to establish notability of a particular topic. However, we are no longer talking about basing an entire article on the claim by Koster (that's the article we're about to delete); we're now talking about including one single sentence in another full article. That would be, in my opinion, filling in the cracks.
I must admit I am confused by your assertion that DartMUD has nothing to do with LPMud, given that it is an example of one. Further, I don't agree the claim that DartMUD is an influential LPMud is particularly extraordinary; to me this falls under the category of innocuous facts that are not subject to serious dispute. Are you saying that there is contradictory evidence, that Koster has a conflict of interest, or that this claim would significantly alter mainstream assumptions about LPMuds in general? CThomas³ (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best source for this claim that I can find is probably this. There is also this and this as well. I certainly concur that these are not anywhere close to enough to keep the article, but they should be enough for a mention somewhere else, if not LPMud then perhaps Ultima Online.
By the way, I don't think that the fact that no one "answered the call" to preserve DartMUD's is an indictment of its significance. MUDs in general have been practically ignored; it's a shame, but that's just how it is, and it's not dissimilar to many other early internet topics. CThomas³ (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MUDs have had lots of academic coverage—plenty more than other niche fields—just not in an encyclopedic fashion about individual, historical MUDs. I think it's fair to say no one has yet to answer that call but that's also off-topic.

Those Koster mentions do not even mention LPMud in relation to DartMUD. It would have no relevance to say "Koster considers DartMUD part of the canon of Western MMOs"[2] within the LPMud article since LPMud has no relation—it's trivia/just sticking the name somewhere for its own sake. I think the source I just linked has the greater claim to the MUD's significance than those linked above, which also do not mention LPMud in relation to DartMUD. czar 04:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LPMud per Cthomas3. DartMUD clearly doesn't have independent notability, but a mention in LPMud is likely warranted. WP:ATD establishes a presumption in favor of ATDs whenever possible, and I find that the sources even if primary can justify a one-sentence mention of DartMUD in LPMud. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I’m afraid I have to disagree with your premise here. I’m all in favor of ATD when warranted, but in this case all the sources we have are primary sources. There is no secondary coverage; the passing mention by Koster is sourced to DartMUD’s own website. I feel that performing such a redirect without a single secondary source is adding promotion of a non-notable product. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only does it fail the WP:GNG, but there doesn’t seem to even have the sourcing the verify it is notable for inclusion on the list. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Red Phoenix notes, without at least one solid secondary source, I don't even see a redirect as being justified here. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2021 (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.