Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realms of Despair


 * 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 merge to DikuMUD.  Sandstein  20:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Realms of Despair

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write an encyclopedic article on the topic without resorting to original research. Review its sources and when the Usenet primary sources and passing mentions are removed, we're left with two main sources: a brief mention on the defunct Joystiq Massively blog and another mention in a 2007 academic ethnography, both of which do not go into depth about the game or make claims to its wider significance. It had no additional coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as our List of MUDs only lists games with their own articles. Most glaringly, the article was created and maintained by the game's developer, a clear COI. czar 07:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  07:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete for not establishing notability. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 07:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 08:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge with the SMAUG article as discussed here Articles_for_deletion/SMAUG_(2nd_nomination), expanding the article and adding more sources. If the combined article is still not sufficiently notable, it can be merged with something further up the MUD ladder (presumably DikuMUD, as was the case with Merc). Better to merge related articles (and preserve an important part of the internet's history) than pick them off separately. KaVir (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:IAR to preserve a part of the internet's history... Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is up to independent sources to preserve history, Wikipedia documents said sources. See WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Otherwise that would just be original research.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge up to DikuMUD as part of a dual merger with SMAUG, similar to how Merc (MUD) was. I'm fine with a Delete result though, as GNG isn't going to be met. I believe we can manage a paragraph at DikuMUD though on the topic of SMAUG/ROD. -- ferret (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to DikuMUD per ferret. Sources in the article are more than sufficient to support inclusion of a mention of this subject in the proposed supertopic article. BD2412  T 18:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've merged some details into DikuMUD already, as WP:V can be met for the basic facts. See this diff. -- ferret (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to DikuMUD as per WP:GNG and Ferret's concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what sources discuss Realms of Despair in relation to DikuMUD's legacy? I have not seen that in the sourcing and the current version reads as shoehorned/random facts. czar  05:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge with SMAUG WP:IAR as notability is subjective and WP:PRESERVE as the subject as a whole (SMAUG and/or RoD) is notable within the scope of MUDs, and it is difficult to expect the inner workings on a free online text game to be publicly documented to the same degree as Everquest or WoW, despite these games being predecessors. Realms of Despair has been well known for 25 years, has been in the top five MUDs for at least 20 years, and is still up and running. Its source code -- SMAUG, was released near 24 years ago, and has been the basis of hundreds of other MUDs over the years, and also spawned several derivative code bases (AFKMUD, SERF, SmaugWiz, SmaugFUSS, SWR, SWR2, SWRFuss, etc), which also went on to support many MUDs still active today. As far as what it had specifically contributed to the DikuMUD -> Merc lineage, this is of course not unknown, but would have to be sourced to the source code itself, which is public and open, and should be citable. Source code does not lie, and is unbiased. If the feature can be found within the source code, then that should be an acceptable source. Thus, I mention these few things to be found in the SMAUG source code, to distinct it from it's parent, Merc2.1, and its grandparent, DikuMUD: complete online creation for every single feature including even spells -- magic spells could be created and edited in game, repairable equipment, a clan system, a PK system (player killing), object grouping, object and equipment layering, corpse saving (across crashed and reboots), pet saving, projectiles, mounts, unlimited online message and bulletin boards, etc, etc, too many to list, but available in summary here https://www.smaug.org/features.html, and yes, I know that link can't be a citation, but the original released source code should be citable. The SMAUG code introduced a lot of features not available in other public code bases. There is no contest to this, and it shouldn't have to be published in a half dozen books when the source code is there for all to see. --Thoric (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Thoric (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
 * Not looking for a "half dozen books". I'd take one single independent, reliable source to reinforce the above original claims. Academics love MUDs—they have plenty of coverage. czar  21:11, 11 December 2020 (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.