Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medievia

Medievia[edit]

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 of the debate was speedy keep

I feel that this article is generally describing any mu* on the internet and see no reason for a special entry on it, especially with all the controversy surrounding the whole thing. Tearstar 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Medievia is fairly large as MUDs go, and if anything, the controversy only makes it more notable. If any MUD deserves an article, this one does. Ehheh 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Medievia is a very significant MUD. It ranks #4 over at The Mud Connector [1] and has its own version of ZMUD [2]. The controversy is just another reason why this MUD deserves an article. Its case is significant for the copyright precedent it could have on thousands of other similar games. --Hetar 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:WEB. I am willing to reconsider though if somone can post information meeting that criteria.--Isotope23 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete opinion removed per AfD nominator's request... though I will say that the Keeps did a rather poor job of laying out any coherent or meaningful argument for notibility that would meet any accepted wikipedia guidelines... but if Tearstar wants to let them slide that is Tearstar's business.--Isotope23 13:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep as above. For great justice. 20:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I second the "keep" votes above and, in fact, feel that the article's discussion of the license violation controversy should be expanded, and given greater prominence. I must also question the user Tearstar's motives in listing this article for deletion. A cursory look at his/her list of contributions reveals that he/she has contributed to a couple of MUD related articles, namely Sancara and Legends of Cosrin. "Tearstar", in fact, appears to maintain a website related to the latter. Therefore, "Tearstar" appears to hold contradictory views on the subject of Wikipedia entries for MUDs, unless his/her opinions have radically changed in the last few weeks. Traumerei 02:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

My opinions are not biased, I feel that this mud should deserve an article, I personally feel that it is a notable MUD, however my problem is the details of the article are very much the same as every other MUD, I could copy this entire article and use it for every other MUD that is out there. My reason for commenting/modifying/monitoring mud articles is because of my deep knowledge of many muds they are what i spend all my time doing. (I have played Cosrin for about 8 years) but I feel that if this article is to be included, then it should have some major points of inclusion, not simply how to play a mud or describing every other mud. If there is nothing of note other than the controversy then I feel it should be removed or somehow listed under MUD, but if someone would like to reformat it, tell us why it should have it's own article, then I would have no problem with it existing, but the article in and of itself needs to tell readers more than what a general mud is. And the criteria it would fall under Isotope23 would be WP:SOFTWARE which I do understand is not policy yet, but proposed Tearstar 07:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFTWARE is proposed policy; I personally don't apply policies that have not been generally accepted... to me they are meaningless. It is content delivered over the internet, and WP:WEB is the closest policy to apply, though I guess "another MUD with no distinguishing characteristic from any other MUD and no evidence of external notability" would work too.--Isotope23 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tearstar, I believe your comments lack merit. Your statement that you could clone this article to describe any other MUD makes little sense; for instance, there aren't several other MUDs with large playerbases that are also guilty of blatant license violations. Looking at the Legends of Cosrin and Sancara articles, I see nothing particularly unique about those either, they read like advertisements for those games in fact (which is not permissible under WP:WEB). The Medievia article, while certainly lacking in polish, does collate several important critiques of the game, as well as an overview. If you felt that the article needed improvement, you should've added to the Talk page discussion, rather than indulge in this seemingly trollish attempt to subvert the Wikipedia deletion process. If you feel the article deserves to exist, but doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards, well there's already a process for that, and the article had been tagged to reflect that. I look upon this article, in addition to an overview of the MUD, as the kernel of a case study in software license violations, and a general example of how, on occasion, the Free Software community is unable to enforce software licenses due to the cost of litigation. I'd welcome expansion of the article in that direction from qualified contributors.Traumerei 05:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very poor article and needs to be cleaned up in many different ways. Currently the whole article is about how it's based on Merc, with some discussion about how it was claimed to have been "completely rewritten". It leaves out that it was "completely rewritten" multiple times, and generally downplays the significance of any opposition to what Michael Krause says. Since this is an articles for deletion thing, notability is enough for a Keep vote. The content of the article does need to be fixed up, but AfD is not the process for it. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:14, 1 April 2006 (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.