Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanvaent


 * 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   Keep I concur with CW's argument; use the reference he provided, and, at worst, merge into an article. Cheers.  I 'mperator 13:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nanvaent

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence that this MUD meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. The only sources provided in the last two years are not, unfortunately, reliable. It appears that there simply isn't reliable, third-party information available to show this game is notable. Simply being the "second or third MUD in the UK", as claimed on the talk page, doesn't make this de facto notable. Sandolsky (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * *sighs a little* Delete per nom. An institution that many of us of a certain age, a certain persuasion, and a certain nationality will remember - but, unfortunately, not something that passes WP:WEB. Tevildo (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was nominated for deletion a while back and it was decided to keep it AFAIK fluoronaut (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. A large number of articles about MUDs were nominated in one very large discussion. Many of those arguing keep in that debate made the point that some of the individual articles should be separately relisted since they were about non-notable games. The keep result came about because clearly some of those articles were notable and mass nominating all of them was a bad idea. I don't believe that means that all of the articles there were automatically notable Sandolsky (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like wikipedia itself uses the word 'notable' in reference to this game in the Discworld mudlib entry--Mzzl (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is referenced in this scholarly paper and the title is a useful search term. Worst case is that it gets merged into some large article about MUDs.  AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, that paper simply contains a one-line entry about Nanvaent in a large table listing MUDs. The existence of the game isn't in dispute, it notability is. If there is a paper (preferably multiple papers) that is substantially about Nanvaent, then it should be used as the basis for a properly sourced article. The paper you found doesn't rise to the level of a source for Wikipedia's purposes. Sandolsky (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: When disputing a game's notability, you do dispute a game's existence. If no one has written about it (nothing notable), then there is no reason for it to exist in the minds of society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elm-39 (talk • contribs)  18:30, 4 May 2009
 * Comment The policy on notability is flawed. This isn't a paper encyclopedia where everything has to fit into a fixed and limited number of pages. It is also biased against things not happening in the USA. There are thousands of wikipedia entries on individual high schools, fraternities, clubs and picknick sites, all apparently considered more notable than the entries for a number of MUDS which are still open to the public and still have players. And even if this hadn't been the case, why would an online game that has been up and running for 18 years be less notable than events that hit the local news for a few days some 30 years ago? --Mzzl (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: By the way, I am *not* arguing for the deletion of those high schools, fraternities, clubs and other obscure entries. If something is notable to a few thousand people, even only extremely locally, why not keep it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzzl (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a bone to pick with WP:N, then please bring it up at WT:N, not here. This doesn't help the discussion at hand. You may also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MuZemike 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right I suppose, I withdraw my vote.--Mzzl (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – found something that provides some decent coverage of the MUD here. I am still undecided whether I am for or against deletion, however. MuZemike 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I'm satisfied from the searches by MuZemike and Colonel Warden that there's enough independent sources to verify something significant on this topic. Maybe consider a merge, though. Randomran (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * keep: This is one of the oldest still running LPMuds, a forerunner of Ultima Online and World of Warcraft. I know this probably isn't as significant to your usual Wikipedia user who is looking for information on porn stars or variations on anal sex, but it has some historical significance to online games. Jlambert (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The game is mentioned in an issue of Audyssey, a magazine on gaming for the blind: --Mzzl (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2009 (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.