Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempora Heroica


 * 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   delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tempora Heroica

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The only secondary source provided is a forum post, which is not a reliable source. A Google Books search does show it mentioned in "Archipelagoes: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases", but be aware that this cites Wikipedia as a source, so again not usable. Web search shows the usual directory entries and self-published works. Marasmusine (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's something deeply shady going on with those "Webster's Quotations" entries in Google Books with all the Wikipedia material. There's a lot of them, their supposed titles are apparently random words, and they come up for all kinds of searches. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those books are computer-generated, and, as they are print-on-demand, most of them probably don't actually exist physically - see Philip M. Parker. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  Marasmusine (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unable to find any RSes. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable by longevity and publication (Archipelago codebase, as noted by Hobo Dave); Usenet suffices to establish longevity, self-publication suffiices to demonstrate publication. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Detete - Can't find any significant coverage --Teancum (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Niche notable MUD trees (Archipelago) -- Hobo Dave (talk) 7:57:55, Apr 13 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the "keep" opinions offered address the total lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. I have spent some time looking for such sources, but can find none. Longevity and self-publication are not reasons to have an encyclopedia article about a subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue with the Archipelago codebase isn't simply that they self-publish something, it's that they publish one of the codebases other MUDs use. I don't anticipate that changes your position, but I wanted to note it. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain a bit further? I'm looking at and, but struggling to see how they qualify for WP:V, let alone lend weight to WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With the TH document, we're using a self-published source for information about itself, which WP:RS is okay with. Obviously that doesn't establish notability by coverage, but it seems to me that codebase publication argues for notability.  The r.g.m.a post doesn't seem to contribute much, though I am kinda vaguely waving my hands at the issue of whether anybody actually uses this codebase they publish, and possibly documentation that they were publishing it 11 years ago helps with that. , while again not counting for coverage, documents that it existed in August 1994, and there I'm claiming that being 16 years old is a big deal for an online game, which I don't think is a completely crazy position.  Obviously both these arguments require a non-legalistic approach to notability; if one wishes to simply apply the General Notability Guideline and have done, then we still have no independent RS coverage and the article is still out of luck. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2010 (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.