Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aardwolf (video game)


 * 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 delete. Two "keeps", one of which only argues that the topic is popular, which is not a valid argument in terms of inclusion policy, and the other is qualified as weak. That's not enough to save this article.  Sandstein  11:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Aardwolf (video game)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its only source of consequence in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. is the Engadget article (formerly Massively). (Nothing in searches of print databases either.) The other sources in the article were patently unreliable blogs or interviews (which, when used as self-published sources, are not considered in notability discussions). As with all subcultures, as "popular" as Aardwolf might have been at any point in time, there just isn't enough coverage to write a dedicated article on the topic right now. I would be fine with a redirect to List of MUDs, using that Engadget source as justification, but deletion is an option too. What's not an option is stacking an article with unreliable refs when a redirect to a list will suffice. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ping me. czar 05:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  05:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS or at-the-time magazines. I can only locate the already-used Engadget article. The other source in the article is primary and unsuitable for WP:GNG on its own. Of the previous sources, I cannot even locate the game's mention in 3 of them, 3 reviews (one short) do not appear to be reliable sources (no author credentials, no apparent site editorial structure), and 2 are 404 with no IA copy. In the end, there does not appear to be enough material to cover the subject sufficiently to warrant an article, despite its niche popularity of the time. I would say redirect seems suitable, but there doesn't appear to be a target (List of MUDs only includes notable games). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see that Czar has removed several (opinion piece) references from the article. Aardwolf is (I believe) the most popular MUD in existence. It regularly comes top on the popularity polls (although those polls don't constitute reliable sources). Professional video game journalists don't get paid to review MUDs any more, which is why it is so hard to find sources that meet Wikipedia's exacting standards.


 * I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia would be better for the absence of an article about the most popular current MUD. If you really think that the sourcing is inadequate, please consider WP:IAR to keep this article in Wikipedia.


 * Disclosure: I play Aardwolf and I wrote the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't redirect - A redirect to a list where the topic is not mentionned is never appropriate, and this game won't stay on the list because "having an article" is part of the inclusion criteria. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The subject has a couple of passing mentions findable via Google Books (in Internet Simplified and Internet and Society: Social Theory and the Information Age) that would permit some modest sourced statements to be added to the article, and I'm willing to round them up to vaguely equivalent to significant treatment in a second independent RS. Please don't redirect to List of MUDs, that's just making a mess. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Passing mentions" are exactly what we don't use to confer notability (general notability guideline)—it has to be sustained, substantive. Those two sources speak more to a mention in the MUD article than to a need for a dedicated article czar  06:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even if Aardwolf is in fact currently the most popular MUD, WP:ITSPOPULAR is not an argument. Because of lack of WP:RS, it fails WP:N. The one source, Engadget, is part of the "Rise and Shiny" series, in which they look at "indie or unusual games", that doesn't sound like Aardwolf received a lot of attention. --Soetermans. T / C 11:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does the article creator want to work on the article in his/her draftspace? Userfy is also an option. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been struggling for a few years to find satisfactory sources for the article. I don't expect that I would be able to expand it further in the near future with Wikipedia's referencing standards. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now at best as it seems questionable for notability, perhaps solidly independently notable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.