Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantasy World

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Phantasy World
Non-notable and website spam - Also poor (promotional) structure 172.214.177.252 15:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn. Agentsoo 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advertising --RoySmith 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It might be worth looking at the whole "List of popular MOOs" section at MOO. While I think the general concept of MUDs and MOOs is encyclopedic, individual ones probably aren't.  There is some interesting historical material in LambdaMOO, and (to a lesser extent) LinguaMOO and MediaMOO, but overall I'm thinking it would make sense to merge the significant parts from those individual articles into MOO and have one good article instead of a smattering of trivial ones.  I'm not sure, however, if that discussion is in-scope for this particular VfD. --RoySmith 13:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Advertising. Forbsey 18:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ad. Jaxl | talk 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Save page edited. Advertising removed. -Not sure what 'Unotable' means. Unsigned comment by 207.69.136.197
 * Comment: It is unknown to this writer the difference between said article and other articles under the same topic heading. The topic heading is noted as "List of Popular MOOs", and it is obvious to even the most casual observer that the said article is 'on topic' and according to the topic. The writer of the article did not create the topic. 207.69.138.7 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Save on topic. --207.69.137.202 22:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Could you provide us a reason why this should be in Wikipedia not just "on topic." It is spam as I see it. --J. Nguyen 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn. Xaa 00:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. I also agree with Roysmith here - These pages may be seen as trivial and competetive advertising - Maybe a section on each of the MOOs is required on the main MOO page to create one substancial page. However I see that LambdaMOO is deserving of it's own page due to the insight it gives. Kipper2258 11:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into MOO. -- Visviva 13:39, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.