Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NiMUD


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 01:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

NiMUD

 * Delete software author's vanity page, original research, not-notable and author has made discussion and edits impossible. Jlambert 06:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid reason for deletion. Young Zaphod 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-notability and original research are two (independent) valid reaasons for deletion. Noting vanity and ownership are important and valid for debating AfD.  You might want this kept, but this was a good-faith nomination for deletion. --Karnesky 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep You might be having issues with the author, but the software itself is notable -- Ruby  14:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertisement and non-notable fancruft. BrianGCrawfordMA 15:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep After a month of editing this article, Atari2600tim Jlambert put it up for deletion because he thinks he's playing a game. Young Zaphod 17:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jlambert put it up. --Karnesky 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * JLambert is a colleague at Carnegie Mellon who "hates" the surviving author apparantly. It's hard to tell the difference between Atari2600tim and JLambert, because they both revert the article and tear it to shreds on a daily basis.  They can't leave well enough alone, and frankly they are overly concerned with this article and should move on to other things.  The article is fine as it stands in my book; and I've listened and finally answered all of their requests for citation and  and they still aren't happy. Well, I can't make them happy, I'm not going to make them happy, it's not my job.  Young Zaphod 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that JLambert's short contribtuion history is fairly "focused," (and his relationship with Atari2600tim is, politely, "suspect"). However, your short edit history also leaves something to be desired.  Please don't make ad hominem attacks. --Karnesky 18:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable (per Atari2600tim: <600 google hits--most of them non-relevant or advertisements, the forum has very few posts and very few members, and there is no indication of a substantial current user base or historical interest in this game). --Karnesky 17:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has plenty of context. SargonIII 18:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This edit was SargonIII's first and only contribution --Karnesky 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not from what I can see. Also, he's not. Young Zaphod 19:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The comment was true when I made the post. See for yourself. --Karnesky 20:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Other MUD codebases have Wikipedia pages; if we delete this, most of the MU* Servers category will be wiped out due to non-notability and Google's fickleness. Besides, there's plenty of content on the page. WRT the disputes on here, perhaps this is a case for the dispute resolution processes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam_Pointon (talk • contribs)
 * You have a good point Sam. My primary reasons are original research and it being the author's personal vanity page.  It's extraordinarily POV and contains fictional content (see story on how popular the mud was with Gulf War participants on the page - hint Gulf War ended 3 years before the mud ever existed) for one example, which is very different in character from most of the other mud related pages I've read.  Clearly it not very notable even in the sub category of MUDS.  But I share your concern that all muddish pages would be excised and that's not my intent.  It also contains baseless, bordering on libelous, claims against other mud coders...that is to say it is the author's personal repository of crank theories.  Jlambert 19:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Other MUD codebases have Wikipedia pages, but they also have more players and more running servers. Just take a looksee on mudconnector or similar at how many people are actually running this type of MUD server. Seems nonnotable to me (I even raised this on the talk page.) Also, I'm not anyone's sockpuppet (check user agrees!), unless we're just redefining that term to 'people who sometimes disagree with Young Zaphod. Ehheh 19:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So your reason for it being deleted: even though its a widespread, influential software package, because "few play the game" it should be deleted. That has absolutely nothing to do with the article. You're also one of the article's contributers. Young Zaphod 19:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of users relates to notability. Non-notable software shouldn't have articles on WP. --Karnesky 20:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * keep: I'm not to familiar with the subject but it appears to an okay article. Assides from the very very poor reference... (or non comprehensible, or bizar references that link to an email adress!) This also smell like a plain old wiki disputes. This FUCKING pisses me off because no wiki deletion process should be started for a silly disputes. Try to find the source of the problem... write it down clearly. State it clearly. And if it's not a deletion process put that up. I.e.: verifiability template? Come back once you've solved that if you still have problems. I think it's proper to go through pre-deletion process before nominating. It's usually a lot more amicable. --(previously unsigned post by User:CyclePat)
 * I agree, and that's why I nominated the article. Discussion, citation templates, and even mediation was attempted.  Thus the basic problems with author's vanity pages in the first place.  I especially agree with your comments on the other nomination about making wiki a friendlier place.  I encourage you to review the talk pages even though the subject may not interest you itself.  Unfortunately I believe other pages in this same category will have to deal with this hotheaded self-promoting person making wiki life difficult for many other good faith contributors.  Jlambert 22:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at those weasel words he's using, for shame! 151.201.48.208 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not self-promotion when other people edit and change the article, one of which in this case was you, Jlambert 151.201.48.208 23:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable (even for a MUD) via a Google search. I'm also not impressed by all the usenet postings used as "References" at the bottom of the article. Turnstep 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Draktus 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. That said, behavior on both sides has been appaling so far. I'd like to see a RfC on JLambert, Atari2600tim and Young Zaphod. -AKMask 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * An RfC has been filed against Young Zaphod. See (and endorse) Requests for comment/Young Zaphod.  I may endorse on RfC on JLambert/Atari2600tim, but don't feel confident enough to file one. --Karnesky 12:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I looked up RfC for user behavior as I wasn't familiar with it. I was going to write one up on myself for appalling behavior, but it says two people have to send complaints on my behavior to my talk page first.  Could someone do that for me?  Thank you.  Jlambert 02:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete author created page, insists on owning this article and refuses to allow edits by others, not particularly notable; Google test shows primarily Wikipedia mirrors and a few ads. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is Draktus's first post. To date, he has only four edits: two in this AfD and two in Articles for deletion/Online creation --Karnesky 11:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet another great Keep NiMUD vote. 151.201.48.208 06:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User 151.201.48.208 was listed confirmed as a suspected sock puppet of Young Zaphod in Articles for deletion/Verbungula and on User talk:151.201.48.208 --Karnesky 11:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because this is a CONFIRMED sock puppet for someone who has already voted, I've stricken the vote. There are many other suspected sock votes on this page, though...--Karnesky 02:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets WP:SOFTWARE, especially the part about historical interest.  Agree that behavior of past editors is far beyond the pale of appropriateness, as is the haranguing behavior of certain commenters on this AfD.  Your opinion's been heard - put a sock in it.  - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 08:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, nn (not even in the now-niche MU* world). As a sidenote, this AfD is displaying some extraordinarily depressing behavior. :\ -Phorteetoo 09:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Important note -- I have moved roughly ~1000 words of conversation to the article talk page where it rightly belongs, 'cos this entry was turning into a furball. Please consider reviewing it before voting. Your comments are still right there, and no votes were harmed in this process. No vote.
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, NiMUD is notable in comparison to other MUD codebases. The article however has no value in it's current form, a stripped down neutral version would be an asset. The real problem is with Young Zaphod. --Scandum 13:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Phorteetoo. Most of this information belongs on the group's own website, not on Wikipedia. Stifle 20:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Perhaps further editing is required. Eht Lived 21:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Please see this user's extremely limited contribution history. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is to say THIS AfD, his user page, and Articles for deletion/Online creation. How many sock puppets do we need in this?!?! --Karnesky 01:23, 22 February 2006 (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.