Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapestries MUCK (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 Redirect to Furry fandom#Role-playing seems to be the consensus here (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  05:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Tapestries MUCK
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic (the video game) lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful or in-depth coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to its mention at Furry_fandom may suffice. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ping me. czar 17:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  17:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge / redirect over to where it's referred to at Furry_fandom, and any additional information being added over there can be brought up at that article's related talk page CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. Most of the references to reliable sources, especially the Wired op-ed, are solely passing mentions. Those can be valuable for rounding out an article (or sourcing a section in a broader topic), but not sustaining an article through AFD. I do not have access to the 1998 San Francisco Bay Guardian article; that has the potential to be determinative, but absent something dramatic, I think a merger is probably the ideal outcome here. I'll note that WP:VG's reliable sources list might not be precisely on point here; I wouldn't consider this a "video game" in the traditional sense, and I certainly don't expect potential sourcing to come from the video game review industry. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the SFBG article. It isn't supportive; it doesn't mention Tapestries.  (It'd be a fine support piece for FurryMUCK.) —chaos5023 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2015 (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.