Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FurryMUCK (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 keep. Sandstein 08:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FurryMUCK[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It is currently an impressive refbombed collection of every passing mention, primary source, and local paper that has mentioned the game, but shows no enduring or independent notability of its own. Remove the unreliable sources and there would be nothing left. The game had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. It is most often invoked as a cultural gateway into furry fandom so a redirect to its mention at Furry_fandom#Role-playing should suffice. czar 03:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously notable community, with coverage from reliable third party sources casually dismissed in the nomination. Here's more coverage.[1][2] - hahnch e n 19:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could go source by source if you want. I saw the Wired article, but as I said in the nom, the subject of this coverage is really "furry fandom on the Internet", of which FurryMUCK is a part (usually in passing) behind the more notable LambdaMOO and A Rape in Cyberspace. czar 23:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it for my links too. High Noon on the Electronic Frontier spends over a page on characterizing FurryMuck in its sections on "Cyborg Sexuality" and "The Cyborg Self", but the subject of that coverage is really the more notable cybersex and the internet. The Players' Realm spends over a page discussing the interaction between FurryMUCK's moderators, minors, the ACLU and the impact of the Communications Decency Act, but the subject of that coverage is the more notable internet. - hahnch e n 23:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This MUCK is discussed extensively in reliable sources; its existing citations should more than suffice to demonstrate notability, but if for some reason that doesn't seem to be the case, with hundreds of hits on Google Books and 67 on Google Scholar I haven't the slightest doubt enough additional ones to settle the matter can be found. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Keep – I'm finding lots of coverage in books, but a great deal of it is {{paywall}}ed, making assessment of the depth of coverage uncertain. See sources below. I'm only able to fully access the first source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Players' Realm. p. 86. McFarland.
Communities in Cyberspace. pp. 129–. Routledge. (subscription required)
Atlas of Cyberspace pp. 187-188. Addison-Wesley (subscription required)
Net Games. p. 209, 228. Random House Information Group. (subscription required)
Internet Virtual Worlds Quick Tour. pp. 109–. Ventana Press. (subscription required)
The Active Reader: Strategies for Academic Reading and Writing. pp. 426-427. Oxford University Press. (subscription required)
Internet starter kit for Macintosh. p. 65, pp. 115-116. Hayden Books. (subscription required)
Internet Starter Kit for Windows. p. 63, p. 81, p. 105 (subscription required)

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.