Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon's Kingdom

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. –MuZemike 22:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon's Kingdom[edit]

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

Non-notable browser based MUD. Previously deleted as a copyvio, but OTRS permission has been established. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, see article talk page for OTRS ticket details. Fæ (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the one who tagged it first for spam and then for copy-vio. I still think it's promotional, as the text used here is scattered over the web. I found the following comment in a forum (posted by 'Bones') in a thread headed "Dragon Warrior Beta is Release" (sic) and following the same text: "Wow, this game is a rip off of Dragon's Kingdom... ". That 'Dragon Warrior' game is at dragonwarrior.us. There is a site called dragonskingdom.com, which claims to be "An Old Dragon's Ramblings" and appears to be an unrelated blog. dragonskingdom.co.uk appears identical in content and text to dkrpg's, but uses a different page format and at the time of visiting had "Players Online: 2 | Most Online: 63 | Registered Players: 21,470", while dkrpg had "Players Online: 1 | Most Online: 50 | Registered Players: 23". As there is only a link to dkrpg here, I assume that that is the one intended, and that with 23 currently registered players, it is somewhat un-notable. Given the circumstances, I wonder if the dkrpg people actually can license the use of the text, as I am not certain to whom it belongs. I would think that a site called dragonskingdom had the name before one called dkrpg, but am not going to investigate tonight. I rest my case for the moment on the lack of participants at dkrpg. Peridon (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the points above are addressed now in the article. I agree with Fæ (userpage communication) that we could do with an experienced gamer to look at this congeries. Peridon (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete ad? copy-paste? copyvio? Who cares? It doesn't have even the slightest assertation of notability anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My primary reasoning for starting a discussion rather than speeding it is be use wikipedia has a notoriously bad record for misjudging the importance of subjects which may be important to a particular subculture. Call that a bug or a feature, but we can live with some discussion before determining the disposition of this article. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, if primary sources are not found within a few days. With the recently added section 'Original Concept', it is clear that this particular MUD is part of a family tree of MUDs based on Dragon Warrior. There seems to be scope for an article about the MUD evolution even if sources are too sparse to warrant specific articles for each MUD in the family tree. If a new article is opposed, then a merge of basic details to Dragon_warrior#Legacy may be a reasonable response. Fæ (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2010 (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) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's third party coverage, I'm not finding it. I'm also not finding anything to support identifying the game as a MUD; it self-identifies solely as an "online browser based RPG", and as far as I can find the term "MUD" does not occur on its official web site. So relevance to the evolution of MUDs is dubious. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criteria A7 (web-based content). There are 4,232,102 browser games (approx.) so importance should be shown in the first instance. I could not find any reliable secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frankly, this article is twaddle. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable, significant coverage found. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 6 October 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.