Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aardwolf (video game) (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 delete. The game at issue has been subject to two earlier AfDs before this (one with the 'game' moniker, the other with 'video game' in the title), both which resulted in a consensus to delete. Based on the discussion here, that consensus appears to be unchanged. There's a lot of debate on this AfD itself, but only 1 non-sockpuppet account is arguing to keep the article, while several others have offered serious challenges to the secondary sourcing available under WP:GNG. I feel the policy arguments are far stronger with the delete position and have closed this accordingly. As this remains the same consensus view as previous AfDs, I'm also going to salt the article. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

No new reliable sources since the 2016 AfD. Save for Engadget, none of the other article sources are reliable and independent. There are no suitable redirect targets since List of MUDs only includes independently notable entries (i.e., with their own articles). czar 01:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  01:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 02:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Aardwolf is one of the most popular games in a dying genre. There are few articles because the genre is dying. MUDs at this point cater to an audience of at most a few thousand people, so there are not going to be many new articles on it. I disagree with calling the sourcing unreliable and un-independent. Calling them unreliable just because they are niche is doing a disservice to the community. I just added multiple more sources to the page, including two published books. That should satisfy the requirements. Bluedude588 (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Popularity does not automatically make something notable on Wikipedia. There's also a lot of obscure, "niche" subjects covered on Wikipedia but that's because they meet the notability criteria, which Aardwolf doesn't. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 04:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just edited the article and added two published book sources. Bluedude588 (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

*Strong keep. What makes Aardwolf unique is that it is one of the last video games of its kind. I consider it a real shame that there are not enough articles about MUDs on Wikipedia. Just because it is "niche" does not make it unworthy for Wikipedia. Additionally, the sources are not unreliable. JohaNepomuk (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote from editor blocked for socking. Woodroar (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * INFO. I added a bunch more sources to the article and expanded upon its relevancy. I believe its notability is well established now and as such should be unmarked for deletion. Additionally, the critiques of the article up until this point I believe are now outdated and should be rewritten to reflect the changes made within the article. Also, please let me know if this is not the correct way to inform you all of the changes I made. I wanted to make sure that this would be seen, but if there is a more proper place to put this, just let me know. Bluedude588 (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Even with the addition of the sources you mentioned, nearly all of the other references are unreliable and there's not enough reliable ones to make this thing stand on its own. I still feel it fails the notability criteria. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 14:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you feel like there are specific references that do not belong, then you can edit them out. As it stands the article has clearly been established as notable. I'll list out the reasons why. 1. It uniquely has incorporated graphics. 2. It has been the subject of both a master's and PhD thesis. 3. It is in the top three most popular MUDs. 4. It has been featured in multiple magazines. I don't know what else you could ask for with a game in a niche genre like this. I just went back to searching for more sources and found another (the PhD dissertation and art magazine reference). At this point my article is better sourced than many of the non-contested MUD entries, and is probably better sourced than many stubs on Wikipedia in general. Here's some examples. JediMUD, Darkness Falls: The Crusade, Holy Mission, Muddy Waters (video game). An example of a random other stub that is way less notable and well sourced than this one is the Kenneth Peppiatt article. If that is allowed to be on Wikipeida, there is absolutely no reason for my article to get deleted, especially now that I have added in like five more sources since it was flagged for deletion. Bluedude588 (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because those pages have not been deleted does not mean that consensus supports keeping them (looks like almost all of those have the potential to see deletion, from a cursory glance). Almost all of the sources in Aardwolf are unreliable or are primary, and until you can find significant coverage of this game in reliable, independent, third party sources, I do not support keeping this. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 20:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Except what you are claiming is simply not true. Out of the 14 sources, there is only one primary source, and that is the game's website. If we can settle this by deleting that one source and the one sentence it is attached to, then I'm fine with that. As for unreliability, I think that claim is untrue as well. There are two published books, two academic papers, and three articles/projects from magazines. Again, if you have specific issues with certain sources lets tackle those. But on the whole there are plenty of reliable, independent, and third party sources in this article, and I have gone above and beyond to demonstrate this. The fact that my article is still being called out is honestly starting to feel like harassment. It does not appear as if you are giving this article a fair shake. Instead of wasting all this time over deletion, how about we just fix the article? Because there are definitely enough legit sources here to justify an article. Bluedude588 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That means nothing. It fails the notability criteria by a long shot. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 21:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that it fails the notability criteria without providing an actual explanation. I'm looking through what Wikipedia defines as notable, and this article has it. "Significant coverage" is easily covered by the articles and PhD dissertation. "Reliable", again is covered by the published sources here. There are multiple secondary sources. All by one of the sources are "independent of the subject". You might want to take a look at WP:GNG because my page does fulfill what they list there. Bluedude588 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I peaked through the articles you have created, and some of them have even few sources than mine. I'm going to question your ability to judge gaming articles on their notability if you think Aardwolf's is unacceptable but your Space Chaser one is. That article cities StrategyWiki for crying out loud. Aardwolf is demonstrably notable, end of story. Bluedude588 (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sole source that meets our requirements is Engadget. Here's the rest:
 * A literal appearance on a table in Games and Rules: Game Mechanics for the "Magic Circle"
 * A few trivial mentions (amounting to 3 sentences) in an opinion piece on an unreliable game site (Veteran Gamers)
 * Some more unreliable sites (Mudstats, Mudconnect, TopMudSites)
 * A primary source (AardwolfMUD)
 * Some trivial mentions in Playboy
 * A thesis that doesn't appear to meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP
 * A literal mention in Vintage Games 2.0: An Insider Look at the Most Influential Games of All Time
 * A guest article on an unreliable game site (keithburgun.net)
 * A review on what appears to be a spammy SEO content farm (Explosion)
 * A film school project that uses screenshots/text from the game
 * A thesis mentioning that film school project
 * That's it. Oh, and this WP:IDHT behavior, ref stuffing, and apparent sock/meatpuppetry or canvassing is ridiculous. Woodroar (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

**Per WP:NOTABILITY, this page should stay. Have you even taken the time to read that policy page? Because it seems that you have quite a restrictive notion as to what is considered a "known source". JoeLeboe (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Looks like this is a sockpuppet of Bluedude588, per this discussion. Namcokid 47  (Contribs) 23:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC) *STRONG Keep There is p-l-e-n-t-y of coverage about Aardwolf. Here, I'll clean up the "references section" and replace some of the not-so-reliable sources with more reliable ones. If this page is deleted, then we're losing one of the only articles on Wikipedia about MUD games. Ergo, this page should NOT be deleted. I will be upset. JohaNepomuk will be upset. Bluedude588 will be upset. The whole MUD community will be very upset. JoeLeboe (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Looks like this is a sockpuppet of Bluedude588, per this discussion. Namcokid 47  (Contribs) 23:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The appearance on that table sources the one claim it is attached to, so I fail to see why that is wrong. Explain how those are "unreliable sources". They establish basic facts, like how many people are connected to a website. The Playboy article constitutes as more than just a trivial mention, and you know that. It includes what makes the game notable and has interviews. That is not trivial. A thesis publish by the second ranked university in Turkey, so that merits something. And the PhD thesis does a bit more than just mention the art project, and if you actually looked into it you'd realize that. The mere fact that such a niche game is in a dissertation establishes notability. Again, how about you fix the article instead of wasting time complaining on here? That's much more ridiculous than anything else going on. 22:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Bluedude588 (talk)
 * Most of the sources you used also just make a bunch of passing mentions of the game. Just because a reliable source mentions a game doesn't automatically make it reliable, there would need to be significant, in-depth coverage of this game from third-party sources to make this pass the criteria. You lobbying a bunch of weird accusations/insults at other editors and myself also does not help your case if you ask me. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 23:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh and for the record, I created Space Chaser like three years ago. If you look at something like Starblade: Operation Blue Planet that I wrote like a few months ago, you can plainly see that it passes the notability guidelines. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 23:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete unfortunately i couldn't find anything about this game from known sources.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe you haven't read it either considering that meager mentions of something in a reliable source do not make is automatically justify any kind of notability. It's real tiresome to see you and several other editors make the claim that "reliable sources for this exist" yet have made no attempt to show anything. I really do not see this thing being kept at this point. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 23:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah so you're participating in slander now? That ain't my sockpuppet. I'm done fighting for the article, but I still don't appreciate you lying about me. Bluedude588 (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This page does not meet the notability guidelines whatsoever. Whether it hurts you or others feelings means nothing if the page doesn't abide by policy. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 23:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note Participants have been canvassed from Reddit /r/MUD. czar  01:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * INFO I just stripped out all the unreliable sourcing from the article. It's leaner but more in tune with what I believe Wikipedia's requirements are. There are no more primary sources or unreliable secondary sources present within the article. It's a stub, but maybe it can survive on as a stub. As for the Reddit thing, I was asking for support on better developing the article and to raise awareness on its existence. Once I discovered that it could be construed as "canvassing" I deleted the post. I apologize if that was against the rules. Bluedude588 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This still doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines by any means. Three sources for an article that short is inexcusable. The PlayBoy source also just barely mentions the game, which again fails WP's notability policies (something you have already been told by another editor). There is no way this article is gonna survive a stub, or even survive this deletion discussion at all. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep implying that short articles need more sourcing. Can you explain why? Would three sources for a medium length article suffice? Bluedude588 (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned our general notability requirements ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") on my Talk page, but that is usually interpreted as technically only requiring two sources. But the coverage needs to be significant. It doesn't have to be a full book, but it also can't be a few sentences or even a few paragraphs. It needs to be enough to prove that (a) a reliable source thought the subject was important enough to cover in detail, and (b) that detail is sufficient for us to write an article around it. Of course, there's some debate about what "significant" means, but I feel like most editors would say something like "at least a few pages specifically about the subject". I could imagine cases where a very short source would qualify if it were extremely information-rich, or where an entire book would not qualify if it were extremely vague, or that we might even require more than two sources if they all basically say the same thing. What really matters is how much information there is. Is there enough to write a full article? With Aardwolf, I don't think there is, at least not at the current time. Woodroar (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I could not find any significant coverage from reliable sources of Aardwolf to warrant it having its own article thus fails WP:GNG. The references on the article at the moment do not provide significant coverage. I would not be opposed for it to be Redirected  to MUD.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , such a redirect would be deleted because "Aardwolf" isn't mentioned in the text of MUD (nor would there be any reason to mention it there) czar  16:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, I guess it would just make more sense to Delete the article.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:13, 1 December 2019 (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.