Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DartMUD (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 speedy keep (nominator banned, no other opinions to delete). Amalthea 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DartMUD

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

Subject fails GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. The sources which are listed are primary and do not meet the definition of "reliable sources" by any stretch of the imagination. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Refs 4, 6, 8, 10 are all WP:SPS by Raph Koster, who is a legitimate expert in the field of game design. In this case, DartMUD's notability is not from its own popularity, which was never more than modest, but from its influence on later game design theory. Since the ebb and flow of Internet game design is posted on, oh, the Internet, rather than print magazines or journals, what you see is exactly what one would expect from an appropriately influential mud. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/MUD has listed DartMUD as a "notable mud" and Koster as a bona fide expert in the field. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to infer your argument is a cop out, but to state that a subject which exists online would not receive treatment or coverage from dead-tree media or any other type of media as defined at WP:RELY seems tenuous at best. If the only documentation exists in the form of a self published document and a WikiProject then the subject may not yet be notable enough. PlusPlusDave (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read carefully the final paragraph in the WP:USERGENERATED section, which explicitly covers (and approves of) SPS'es from experts like Koster. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly the MUD task force's notes are meant to summarize notability status according to GNG, rather than serving as a reference in themselves, but I believe that summary in re DartMUD to be entirely justified. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could benefit from more references, but DartMUD is highly notable, having influenced the entire MMO genre. To quote Raph Koster, "the sort of crafting we had in UO, which is now sort of the default in all the MMOs, was taken from the LegendMUD crafting, which was inspired in part by the DartMUD crafting". Somewhat ironically, Koster also mentioned DartMUD in an article a couple of years ago, where he discussed mud history being erased from Wikipedia, going on to say "At least there’s a good DartMUD page." KaVir (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I'd love to add that to the article, even if it is really meta. :-) Jclemens (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (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) 14:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As already stated, Raph Koster is what makes this notabile. Jclemens, the link you want is here [1], and yes, the above quotes are accurate - "at least there's a good DartMUD page". It would be a sad day indeed when this goes. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JClemens and others; significance in design seems to be well established. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - additional source of significant coverage: Wired Together: Writing, reading, and language acquisition (Hampton Press, 1998) Wikipedia does need some trimming of MUD articles, but this isn't one of them. Marasmusine (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As extensively noted, Koster citations are admissible as evidence for WP:GNG per WP:SPS. Aggregate references more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only we may take Koster as an expert, but it is nearly a premium resource for the area and time. There were a flock of muds back then, and as things go by it is reasonable to expect that the resonance occurs with only a few, while not less than those few either - frankie^MR (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (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.