Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MajorMUD (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 and redirect to The Major BBS.  Sandstein  06:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

MajorMUD
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, and no leads in any historical/archival/print sources. A redirect to the to list entry in The_Major_BBS would suffice. czar 16:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  16:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Major BBS or delete. There are a few trivial mentions scattered throughout Google Books, but there's no significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, articles such as this are exceedingly difficult to find sources for given the era it existed in (I expect you could find plenty of reliable content in Boardwatch and similar magazines from that time, but there doesn't exist an internet accessible archive of that magazine). Article topic clearly meets notability requirements. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If your rationale is (1) we have no [edit: reliable] sources, and (2) keep it anyway, that's not how this works. WP is a tertiary source—it summarizes secondary sources, and this article is currently doomed to be primary source hearsay until a secondary source writes about it (or Jason Scott scans Boardwatch). You're welcome to take this original research to another wiki (indeed), but we don't have nearly enough reliable material here to write an encyclopedia article. czar  18:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of sources, but they're all of the dubious/borderline reliable/primary source variety. Given the sheer number, however, I think this would be a reasonable exception (WP:IAR). As an aside, it's a real dick move to unilaterally decide to redirect an article that already survived an AFD nomination without even trying to use WP:PROD. Don't do that. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's 2016. Wikipedia has grown up. czar  23:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How nice for you, to be able to decide when (and that) Wikipedia has grown up. I must have missed the notice from the Foundation that they had selected you as the permanent leader and speaker for Wikipedia. Let's try this another way: what's changed since the last AFD in policy or guideline that makes you believe that this article is suitable for deletion AND/OR that gave you the right to redirect the article without discussion? I see WP:CON is still there, so consensus must still mean something, yes? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Answer to the first part is in the nomination. Answer to the second part is BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. As for "consensus", you might want to see what the closer made of the last discussion. Notability guidelines have tightened since 2011—we don't keep articles without reliable sources. czar  03:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think debates like this show one of the flaws/problems with Wikipedia: reliable sources for some topics will be nearly (not completely) impossible to find. If an encyclopedia is supposed to be a "comprehensive reference work" and a "comprehensive summary of human knowledge", how then do we justify excluding something that is clearly notable simply because we can't find sources saying it existed/exists? Follow that logic far enough, and you'll be excluding patently obvious things. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's uncontested and why I said things have changed. WP is more interested in presenting the sources, not finding the truth. We're better at being a tertiary source than in being a webhost for the Internet's original research. It would not be so hard for any mainstream gaming publication to publish something on the influence of MajorMUD if it is indeed so influential. That's your catch-22. czar  20:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This still an active game being played. There is still plenty of 3rd parties making addons and additions to the game.  This is still a very active game compared to some video games released in the last 5 yrs. (First time posting so sorry if I didn't follow edict.) BearFather (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)BearFather — BearFather (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just because WP:ITEXISTS doesn't mean it's notable.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  09:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Luckily, nobody is saying it's notable just because it exists. It's notable because at the period it was at its peak, it was a very popular online game. Games like this inspired and developed into MMORPG's such as World of Warcraft. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And this MUD's notability is not inherited from its influence on WoW czar  20:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per CZAR, lack of reliable sources. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply shouting WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid rationale for keeping. Even guidelines like WP:NEXIST require participants to at least prove the existence of reliable sources. It's worth noting that the previous AfD was also littered with such bogus "IAR" claims; the article can be moved to Draftspace if people are so convinced sources exist.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  09:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't like this result; I personally believe this topic is more than historically significant enough to merit an article, but the state of available sources has never agreed with me, so I'd have nothing to lean on but special pleading.  There's been enough of that in this article's long history with deletion process. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as overall still questionable for the applicable software notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:52, 7 May 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.