Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MajorMUD


 * 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   no consensus. While there seems to be a consensus regarding the lack of reliable sources, the notability of the subject is disputed. I chose to ignore WP:IAR. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

MajorMUD

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'll probably be accused of OMG Literally Deleting MUD History From The Internet, but this article has been tagged as unreferenced since October 2008. Verification from a reliable published source is the minimum standard for inclusion. There are no hits from Google Books. It's possible something like Dragon Magazine covered MajorMUD in the mid 90s. The burden of evidence rests with the contributing editor, though. Marasmusine (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  Marasmusine (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I find it very strange that MajorMUD evaded media attention as thoroughly as appears to be the case, but I've never been able to find evidence to the contrary. I actually do get two legit hits for it on Google Books today, which is more than previously, but both are passing mentions that aren't going to help with notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * MajorMUD came with MajorBBS and (so I assume) fairly decent board software, so there was no need to use Usenet which provides 80% of the primary sources for random nobodies wanting to write a book about MUDs. Had they known where to look there probably would be some excellent resources. --Scandum (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'll bite. OMG, why don't you try to find sources to help it be referenced? Or trim the article back to enough to remove the unreferenced tag? I fail to see the benefit in deleting this article. BTW, you might be more forthcoming with this being the SECOND time you've tried to get this article deleted. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick replies: Tried, couldn't find. Trimming the article doesn't make it less unverified. If you are referring to Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD), note that I was not the nominator, nor did I !vote "delete". Was there some some other deletion attempt that I've forgotten about? As the initial contributor, what efforts have you made to find sources to help it be referenced? Marasmusine (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you check MajorMUD+Download before your AfD? –82.113.106.29 (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant; please take a look at WP:N. Your accusation of bad faith in the edit summary when you added this comment is also extremely inappropriate; see WP:AGF. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the "Mudpedia" page "MajorMUD" to external links, and asked on its talk page for help with the missing references here. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll also put in here that I have a giant stack of MUD-related books from the mid-to-late 1990s that I use for sourcing MUD-related articles (check my contributions history), and though I've looked, I've never managed to turn up mention of MajorMUD in any of them. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the talk page somebody wrote: "if you want a specific source for MajorMUD, Ron Penton's "MUD Game Programming" (ISBN 1592000908)". Can you check that alleged source? –82.113.106.29 (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a passing mention in the "About the Author", talking about how Penton was into MUDs ever since his favorite BBS installed Swords of Chaos and MajorMUD. No actual coverage of MajorMUD. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for checking that, and I just saw that the Mudpedia page in essence copies Wikipedia, so copying it back also won't improve the article. But it has additional references including a link to quest-ware.net (removed here by User:Marasmusine because it was added by the site owner). If you'd add these references the article is good enough to keep it. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I found the deletion link on a user talk page. The article already survived an AFD in 2007, it might be irrelevant for folks like me who never cared about MUDs. But it is a valid historic topic, it has a few links to it, and it is better than yet-another-dead-sourceforge-project stubs such as Posadis, where I couldn't resist to add an  tag after I found that the "company" web page is now a domain for sale. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * None of that really helps; again, see WP:N. The article's survival of the previous AfD is more about the extremely flawed nature of that AfD than about this article.  Regarding Posadis, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  The thing is, while I personally feel like we in fact ought, in a better world, to have an article on MajorMUD, the project (meaning Wikipedia) has standards for topic inclusion and this topic needs to meet them like any other.  I happen to think that those inclusion standards have extremely serious things wrong with them, but I don't have a credible alternative to propose at this time.  Until I do, going to Wikipedia and telling us that the project should have articles outside its defined scope is like going to the Apache people and telling them that their project should also wash your laundry. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the article clearly deserves its "missing references" tag, and there might be more issues, but "not notable" is just wrong (based on my Google search results). I'm not really interested in the topic, I was a Maximus sysop in 1996, I have no idea about Major BBS MUDs. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Finding sources is the first step to establishing notability, which I appreciate. Those wishing to help should familiarize themselves with our standards for WP:Reliable sources. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The added link to DMOZ category "MajorMUD" covers all links you had to remove here under WP:VG/EL &mdash; I tend to accept that as relevant guideline. To get a fresh opinion about the page I added . –82.113.106.29 (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Linking to DMOZ is perfectly acceptable, and recommended at the EL guidelines. However, none of the sites listed there are remotely acceptable as sources for verification. Marasmusine (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Google hits demonstrate nothing about notability. You're apparently not actually reading WP:N or WP:RS, so let me explain: "notable" on Wikipedia does not mean what it means in real life, especially the "I think it's significant" meaning.  On Wikipedia, "notable" has actually become jargon that means "has significant coverage in independent reliable sources".  Ten million Google hits do not a single reliable source make.  Penton's book is fine, as are the two magazine mentions that come up on Google Books, but their failure to say anything about MajorMUD means they aren't "significant coverage".  (I also found yet another passing mention, on Raph Koster's web site.)  What the article needs is the kind of coverage discussed in WP:RS; if you want to rescue it, you'd do much better to find some of that instead of spinning your wheels reformatting it and adding links. —chaos5023 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:IAR. The article could be shortened till the most probable data is left. --Scandum (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have to say, I support an IAR rationale for a keep here. The sourcing difficulty seems to me more like some kind of aberration than the legitimate obscurity enjoyed by many MUD-related topics, and as far as I can tell there's no issue of promotional nature, the software having been abandoned by its publisher ages ago. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm listening. The rule we want to ignore is "verification through reliable secondary sources" - let's put notability aside for the moment. I'm not clear on what the actual rationale for this is. Also, you did mention a few minor mentions in books. Is this enough for a mention of MajorMUD of equal measure in an article on a broader topic? Marasmusine (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that MajorMUD had a BBS front end, as a result Usenet wasn't used, which in turn closed the community off from the mainstream community. As someone familiar with MUD history I know MajorMUD is notable, so a short article with some primary sources and one secondary source should do. MajorMUD was recently mentioned on Massively:
 * http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/04/26/the-game-archaeologist-plays-with-muds-your-journeys-part-1/
 * If we count that as a secondary source all that's needed is a few primary sources to make sure the article gets its facts straight. --Scandum (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Massively link is definitely a step in the right direction. For me, this is enough to have Major mentioned at the broader MUD article (per N). As it's clear that both you and chaos5023 have a good knowledge of WP guidelines and MUD history, I can concede to allowing a separate article. At the same time, I'd like the AfD to run its full course. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would probably be better to focus on MajorBBS in the MUD article, as that would cover about half a dozen MUDs. --Scandum (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little leery of making MUD the refuge for material that couldn't sustain its own article. It's already on the weighty side.  I'd rather keep MajorMUD in its own article if possible, or expand on it in MajorBBS.  There'd be no law that we'd have to go out and make articles on the other MUDs covered in the Massively piece, and I don't think we should regardless unless there are additional sources for them.  (Though I think I have another source that I could pair with it to put together something about TOS TrekMUSE, which would be pleasing.) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I read in "The Major BBS Restoration Project" forum merging MajorMUD and Major BBS could make sense, apparently they mainly wanted to restore MBBS for the purposes of MMUD. On the other hand the legal history is rather complex, and it's simpler to document the purported intention to sell MMUD (2011-03, 4th reference in MajorMUD) in a separate MMUD article. –82.113.121.53 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep It -- This article needs to be retained. MajorMUD is an important piece of history in the development of computers, particularly with the earlier BBS systems in the 1980's. Metropolis was a major host of MajorMUD games; perhaps some correlation could be made there in order to keep this article alive. Erzahler (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester  09:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IAR Keep I think this is an important enough part of internet history that it should be kept regardless of ability to establish notability by reliable sources. Monty  845  19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a vote.  I do not see how WP:IAR can apply here.  The subject lacks requisite coverage to sustain an article.  If it is discovered later that there was such coverage we can discuss at DRV.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand how WP:IAR can apply here, then frankly you don't understand WP:IAR. There's no doubt in my mind that this article meets our notability requirements, it's simply finding actual printed content to back it up that will be challenging. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The deletion policy is a guideline that can be ignored as per WP:IAR if the consensus is that content is notable enough to warrant an article. There's been quite a bit of link rot, but with a little bit of creative sourcing a small, properly categorized article can be created. --Scandum (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources then please leave me a note on my talk page so that I may reconsider. We have a responsibility as Wikipedians to foster articles which are built on such sources, and WP:IAR is not a free pass from that.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno, dude. Nowhere in WP:IAR does it say "except WP:N".  The point of IAR is that our fundamental responsibility as Wikipedians is to improve the encyclopedia.  Speaking as if WP:N were the foundation of Wikipedia when it's never managed to get promoted past guideline is a bit much for me.  I don't honestly expect IAR-based trains of thought to prevail here, since as far as I can tell they never do at AfD, but it may mean something that a bunch of people are willing to entertain the thought, and I know at minimum that Scandum and I do not whip out IAR every time something we have any interest in is up for deletion (not saying that anybody else does, just that I don't know one way or the other). —chaos5023 (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * IAR Keeps do occur at AfD, though often they are not identified openly as such. Often self identified IAR !votes are the result of some personal connection to the topic, and are thus ignored. However here I think there is a pretty good case for an application of IAR. Of course the person who closes the discussion could use a non IAR justification for a keep/no-consensus, at which point it is hard to say whether the IAR saved the article, or whether it was kept for some other reason. Monty  845  18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree. If the closing administrator opts to keep this article, despite a clear lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, then it is pretty clear (to me, anyhow) what transpired.  ;-)   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per IAR as proposed by Scandum. I think that IAR applies supported by the (yes, very few) mentions of the subject available on the net, added to the difficulty that comes when trying to assess notability properly about this kind of subject at that point of time (i.e., early informatics/internet era) where peer repercussion was not massively focused on, and thus transient. Also I want to argue as I did for another MUD that back then there were way too many MUDs, so finding any third party comments about any of them does make it notable above the others considerably. I'm not saying that this very same rationale may apply for any other MUD (or an analogous case). The way I understand it the guidelines and policies are primarily meant to contain editing within a certain level of responsibility towards the selection and presentation of the subjects, a level that may grant WP the respectability and reliability it aspires to as a body of knowledge. IAR, on the other hand, is to remind us that we have a decision to make that must based on the subject in particular, and that it is not wise to hit a subject with the letter of a policy once we have responsibly found it to be encyclopaedic otherwise - frankieMR (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - (reduced in size since it goes on a big tangent) - I worry that the IAR keep votes we see here could be the result of editorial shame in response to the well-publicized and largely accurate criticism of Wikipedia (related to MUDs) by the likes of Raph Koster. I would hope that any editors invoking IAR here recognizes that shame is not an appropriate reason to use IAR. IAR is intended to be applied to allow rules that stand in the way of improving Wikipedia to be ignored, and not to be an ad hoc free pass that can be applied inconsistently to clear an editor's conscience or to provide a rationale for an editor who is personally invested in the topic. The natural question that arises when IAR is invoked is: Which rule stands in the way of improving Wikipedia? From what I see here, the rule appears to be WP:N. I happen to agree that WP:N is not perfect. I think that a "significant coverage" requirement for RSes should not apply in a GNG examination of the notability of the topic as a whole. If multiple RSes discuss a topic trivially then it is objectively notable - perhaps not as notable as one covered non-trivially, but still notable enough to pass the minimum threshold for inclusion on such an encyclopedia as this. Significant coverage is a logical necessity for the content of the article, but I think that once notability is established for the topic, the content can be filled in using reliable primary sources as well as secondary sources. These views of mine are, of course, not reflected by WP:N. IAR may or may not be well-applied here for the MajorMUD article - I make no judgment either way - but it should be pointed out that IAR is only a bandaid cure for a systemic problem. If users feel that there is a rule that stands in the way of improving Wikipedia then let this be a clarion call. Perhaps it is time to actually change such a rule so that it no longer negatively impacts Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I really cared I'd go dig up those sources, my IAR keep is because I'm pressed for time to contribute, while I'm aware that MajorMUD was probably the biggest online RPG back in 1996, with hundreds of Major BBS servers running MajorMUD, each with hundreds of users. If the bureaucrats want it deleted that's fine though, I'll happily edit MUD content elsewhere. --Scandum (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When ignoring rules, please also consider this fundamental concept: As an encyclopedia we are a tertiary source. We summarize information from secondary sources. We can can ignore the notability guidelines if this makes a better encyclopedia, but there's no getting around what we are. At this point I'm open to a possible merge (which is essentially a "keep"), but our content must reflect the level of content in secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sadly, after this discussion enters third week, there are still no proper sources raised to show for. Yamaguchi先生 16:14, 9 May 2011 (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.