Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUME


 * 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. Insufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

MUME

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Coverage of this game appears to be limited to a single review at The Mud Connector ; I'm not sure if we're accepting this as a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 19:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources, and the statistics in the article confirm non-notability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)*:
 * It's not clear to me what "early offspring" means, but possibly merge to DikuMUD? Pcap ping  11:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wayback Machine archives of http://last-outpost.com/LO/historicallist.html, cited in the article, list thirteen earlier DikuMUDs that were still running as of January 2004. Given the high attrition rate of muds in general, let alone after twelve and a half years, it's very probable that there were many, many others released prior to it as well.  I don't think a merge to DikuMUD is reasonable on this basis. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 14:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete then. A single self-published source is not enough for WP:N in my view, even if it qualifies as an expert per WP:SPS. This is in line with outcomes for many other software based on similar sources. Pcap ping  18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  11:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  13:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Raph Koster is an expert in online games; being mentioned by him is reliable independent sourcing. Note that we've gone through and cleaned off most muds as NN.  While this level of sourcing may seem inadequate, it is actually pretty good for an online, non-commercial game. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, "So a bunch of titles you've never heard of like Mortal Conquest and MUME for doing such interesting things with player conflict..." That's it. Hardly the stuff of WP:GNG. As a citation, it's suitable for a section on Koster's influences, but thats it. Marasmusine (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're certainly entitled to disagree, but this gets into a more fundamental discussion of "How should we cover individual M*'s in Wikipedia?" which seems a better question for Wikiproject Video Games than an individual AfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - For some background into how MUDs are/were treated by Wikipedia, please see the Edge article - Can Games Survive History? and the associated discussion at WT:VG. - hahnch e n 22:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * i.e. treated the same as any other topic. I thought it was interesting how there was a big hoo-hah-hah about us literally erasing all traces of MUD history, as though Wikipedia was physically the only place to publish such information. Perhaps if there was more interest in writing and publishing books on MUDS with extensive coverage on particular games, there would be something for us to actually cite. Marasmusine (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Brief mention in a book . Tons of self-published reviews,  for example.   might be reliable, I can't tell.  weak keep.  Given the nature of the beast, I think we're well served to keep information on the topic as 'important people' think it's important... Hobit (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible that there may be more coverage in this book. Can someone check it out? Pcap ping  00:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A list of SOME libraries holding the book Pcap recommends. (Other libraries may have it.) None near me unfortunately. The 2nd edition of this book can be had cheaply (e.g. Amazon Marketplace, "NetGames2" but there's, unsurprisingly, no 'search inside'). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Normally I would think relisting a debate for a third week a waste of time, but since there is an issue here with locating a book that may help decide the outcome, I'm going ahead in the hopes that somebody will find this book. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Google snippet view shows the extent of this coverage: one mention on page 79, noting that it is one of several games that "simulates Tolkein's world of Middle Earth." This is not significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - only trivial mentions from any potentially reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect to have a copy of the book referred to above in the next week. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or not. Interlibrary loan hasn't gotten it yet and I'm leaving town today. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Happy to wait for someone to take a look at the book. --Joe Decker (ta*lk) 19:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel this is notable, in part due to the longevity of the MUD, and in part due to the tools that have crept up around it. If WP:GNG is not consensus, this can be transwikied to http://mud.wikia.com/wiki/MUD_Wiki . Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (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.