Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TorilMUD

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. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TorilMUD[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and only cursory mentions/listings in other sources. (It should be patently obvious that Yahoo! Wild Web Rides and Massively are not enough to write an article on the subject.) There are no worthwhile redirect targets as the MUD list only includes independently notable items. czar 21:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Massively and Yahoo! Wild Web Rides cites suffice to establish notability; "enough to write an article" is not and has never been an element of the GNG, and is impossibly subjective in any event, as the boundary between "stub" and "(real) article" is impossibly subjective. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes from those two sources are copied in complete in the article's references. This shows just how little our sources have something to say about the subject. AfD consensus has required much more for significant coverage. We have no reviews, no commentary, just passing mentions and directory listings. czar 16:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're thinking of the Playing MUDs on the Internet cite rather than the Massively cite. I'm not leaning on that one because it's very shallow and a weird case, being mostly about the drama-filled history of which TorilMUD was one of the end results. The Massively cite isn't quoted at all and does contain commentary. The Y!WWR cite is a review, and comments on and evaluates the topic, obviously. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Yahoo Wild Web Rides a review—it's closer to an informational listing, especially considering the source. But even if it was—it wouldn't add up with Massively to be significant coverage by any measure. czar 20:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, it does by my measure. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Chaos5023. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to the two RS above, there is a mention of the MUD's influence on Everquest in book "MMOs from the Inside Out" by Bartle. There is also another brief mention in another engagdet article. Note that asserting lack of notability because there were only a couple of hits in video game reliable sources holds little weight, as it could simply be a crappy search query for text-based games like this. In particular, the search missed both book refs. I'm still undecided on a recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very complete search but only of what is available online in vetted sources, and it isn't the basis for the nom. If all we have are mentions, then our coverage should be proportional—e.g., a mention in some related article. czar 00:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently meets the GNG, as evidenced by sources discussed above. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we're talking about two sections: (1) Massively/Joystiq, and (2) Yahoo Wild Web Rides, an offline section the above editors likely did not view. Moreover, two sources, even if you contest the lack of importance of their length, are never enough for the general notability guideline, even if adding the other mentions alongside. Diligence, please. czar 07:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any codified consensus that "two" is now an example of "single" rather than "multiple". —chaos5023 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and below Vir4030 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the previous keeps saying that multiple sources covering the topic help it pass the GNG, but more importantly, the recently added Engadget article boosts the notability significantly. Quote from that source: "TorilMUD is one of those games that pop up again and again whenever MUDs are mentioned, not just for the fun that folks had playing it but for its direct influence on the MMO industry." —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:13, 24 May 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.