Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUD trees (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 merge to MUD. Selectively merge, without original research details. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MUD trees

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Just a list of family trees. What is it for? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 12:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without a valid rationale for deletion. Article includes a lede section, citations and "See also" which should answer the nom's questions. Elizium23 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Merge or rewrite I'm looking at this and it seems like a lot of this is WP:OR or WP:SYN. Is there actually a reliable source that has documented these relationships as a tree? This might be appropriate for merge into MUD, or rewritten as prose. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No reason was given for deletion, so it appears the rationale is more or less WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not knowing what MUDs are isn't a valid rationale for deleting articles about them. -Vipz (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MUD. 100% with @Shooterwalker. This list is chock full o' original research. The fact that one codebase descended from another can be covered in context in the individual notable codebase articles or generalized in the parent article. The article's sources do not assert the independent notability of "MUD trees" from their codebases. It's a bunch of passing mentions used to justify a dedicated article of tree templates. czar 04:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring my comment to agree. We could synthesize trees for all sorts of game lineages based on who was influenced by who, but it would be outside the scope of Wikipedia. We don't do original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm coming at this with no technical background, but in looking at the two "merge" comments above.... Czar says the article is full of orginal research, and Shooterwalker agrees and brings in the idea of synthesis issues. So, my question is: What is in the article that should be merged? Joyous! | Talk 18:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it looks like consensus is divided between those advocating Keeping this article and those proposing to Merge it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this is too technical for the average joe without explaining what it is or why it's important/why we need a flowchart for it. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge which part? Joyous! | Talk 18:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't understand what it is, so I'm not sure. I'd suggest a merge to the main MUD article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a flowchart, it's simply a family tree of which code was derived from which codebase. I'm not sure what sort of technical knowledge would be necessary to understand a concept that exists in all sorts of disciplines. You don't seem to know what a flowchart looks like in actuality. I guess that's a level of technical knowledge we don't need here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even more proof that this article is too technical and would be better served in the main MUD article I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joyous!, re: what to merge, there really isn't a lot since there is no sourced text, but I would merge the Bartle quotes where relevant. Otherwise it's functionally a redirect as a valid search term and should link to a section that describes how MUD codebases are interrelated. czar 19:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The part worth keeping/merging are the reliable third party sources. The relationship between the code bases can be described in the main MUD article in prose. But as a stand-alone article, this fails WP:OR, WP:NOT, and the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: you say it fails these 3 things. Why didn't the nominator bring any of that up? Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask them. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and a procedural issue shouldn't be a reason to reject a proposal that makes sense. There just isn't another video game genre that has a stand-alone article with a mostly graphical family tree. The proper way to cover these topics is in prose, in the main article about the genre. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a valid reason to delete this, this is a waste of everyone's time. Peetrstahl (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strip out original research and merge to MUD or List of MUDs per Shooterwalker, Czar. There's a lot of speculation/synthesis in here based on not a lot of sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Axem Titanium. These trees are WP:OR and even though they are interesting they are not found in independent sources. Wikipedia:STICKTOSOURCE. Keep the reliable part and write it somewhere as prose, not original diagrams. Archrogue (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2022 (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.