Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUD client


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

MUD client

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Twice-challenged merge. I have no real opinion on the matter, but would like to see discussion (as the challenger also requested). Ovinus (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "twice-challenged merge" is in the form of an edit-war where there is zero discussion on the talk page. I see no reason to delete an article on a demonstrably notable topic, and I see no reason to merge it without any discussion having taken place in the sight of involved editors. Elizium23 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Might I mention that this is a replay of the "MUD trees" discussion wherein the nominator had no actual rationale for deletion? @Ovinus why have you nominated this article? Elizium23 (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article because it is arguable that the content belongs in MUD or elsewhere. I'm not sure why it's "obviously notable". In any case, it's better to have a wider discussion then, as you say, a slow edit war. Ovinus (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering the MUD trees AFD also resulted in Merge, this isn't the slam dunk argument you think it is. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've observed a few users effectively delete MUD articles through merging, and doing so poorly, resulting in the removal of dozens of sources and orphaning of several articles in this last attempt. I oppose merging as the article is easy to expand with content that would fall outside of the scope of the MUD article, MUD clients are still actively developed, and the article contains sufficient sources to be notable and stand on itsoftware thats own. Peetrstahl (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to MUD, which already covers the concept. The sources in this article do not describe MUD clients as an independently notable concept from MUDs themselves, and there isn't any overabundance of coverage to warrant a summary style split from the main article. The refs are passing mentions of specific clients used to justify a comparison table, but when the primary sources are removed and what's left is reviewed, there is not nearly enough content to justify a standalone article. This was already explained in the article's edit summary history.
 * Redirection is not deletion and redirection doesn't require discussion in advance, especially when it's uncontroversial. It's a valid (and preferred) alternative to deletion for in instance such as this when there isn't enough content for a dedicated article yet the term itself would be a useful redirect. Nothing is preventing you from merging anything you want to the main article or to a separate MUD-focused wiki. Nothing prevented you from starting a discussion about this topic in the last year. But if you don't have additional sources to add and discuss, then there is no discussion worth having. czar  06:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove WP:OR and merge/redirect to MUD per Czar. The tables, as far as I can tell, are completely original research or interpretation not directly found in sources. There appears to be some sourced history that would be good to merge. People have clearly spent a lot of time compiling this totally unsourced repository of information (which does not mean it should be kept as a result), so maybe there's a MUD wiki that would appreciate it. But it's not the appropriate level of detail for Wikipedia, even if sourced, and I have a hard time believing there are reliable sources that would cover this either. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove WP:OR and comparison tables As a coder/contributor to two MUD clients currently and in the past I will declare WP:COI. I note that in a prior attempt to clean up things a separate Comparison_of_MUD_clients article (where that links to now seems a bit weird!) was deleted in 2018 and merged into this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MUD_client&direction=next&oldid=833038034) which is the origin of all those tables. It is my opinion that whilst MUDs and MUD Servers can be covered together there would still be enough material in the resulting article to justify a separate one from MUD for Clients and for that matter from the Telnet one in its article's second meaning as "the software that implements the client part of the protocol". SlySven (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I already tried this last year. If you remove the tables, nothing of substance remains. It's simply a tangle of primary sources and passing mentions. czar  02:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just trying to work out how to see what the August 2022 of Linux_Format says about the client I code for. It is clear that it was included in that month's cover disc https://linuxformat.com/archives?issue=291 and from what I recall it would have a short article about it in there. SlySven (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, someone showed me a image capture of the page 87 of that magazine and it has seven paragraphs talking about Mudlet which starts, and I quote the first paragraph:
 * "You can't really call yourself a gaming connoisseur if you haven't played a multiplayer text-based game. Fondly referred to as a MUD, standing for multi-user dungeons, these games had elements of role-playing and interactive fiction, all delivered through a text-based interface." SlySven (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to MUD Andre🚐 20:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge to MUD. I agree the tables are not appropriate for Wikipedia and once removed there is not much that warrants a separate article. I think the history section as seen in last year's version that Czarl links to above is worth keeping and improving. There is more content there than in the current MUD#Gameplay section (arguably that article should have separate sections for Clients and Gameplay). -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2022 (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.