Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game) (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   keep (WP:SNOW). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Threshold (online game)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this created from scratch article for the same reasons that the previous one was deleted - Per WP:GNG, which calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources haven't changed, so there is no point me reinventing the wheel - here's the reasons that the sources were rejected by the nom in the last AFD:

The only new source (which was written in response to the last AFD) is a blog post which can be found here. Is this guy notable in MUDs? yes? Is this notable coverage? no because it mentions threshold in passing while discussing the wider issue of wikipedia sourcing of muds. It's a blog about us not threshold - it's not significant coverage. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TopMudSites: while this resembles a record chart, there is no way to look at the past performance of any given MUD, and thus there's no way to verify the claim of charting- not a reliable source.
 * TopMudSites game info page: these are all user- or owner- contributed, thus self-published and not reliable.
 * The Mud Journal: dead and not in the Internet Archive due to a robots.txt file. Thus, we cannot verify any claims from it.
 * Computer Games Magazine (November 2003): It's a "roundup" format article. In gaming literature, this is usually a piece running a few pages, covering ten or more games or topics, assigning one or two short paragraphs to each. It's very likely the quote makes up most of or all of the mention, in which case, it's not "significant coverage".
 * The Mud Connector review from 1999. After discussing it at Talk:Threshold (online game), it seems that this is not a reliable source. It's essentially self-published ; anyone can become a staff reviewer or request a review, and this is evidenced by the frequent change of reviewers over the years.

NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE THAT WAS DELETED IN THE PREVIOUS AFD - THIS WAS A NEW ARTICLE PUSHED INTO MAINSPACE WHILE THE DRV FOR THE OLD ARTICLE WAS ONGOING - THUS WE START FROM SCRATCH AND CONSIDER THIS ARTICLE ON IT'S MERITS NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PREVIOUS AFD --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This inaccurately describes the sourcing of the article. At present the article has four sources that I would say are clearly reliable and independent. (The MUD Journal is not used as a source, and I share the dislike for TopMudSites as an indicator of notability, though I'm open to having my mind changed on it)


 * Richard Bartle's blog post, the express purpose of which was to state the importance of Threshold. This is significant coverage by any metric normally used.
 * The CGM article, which is indeed a roundup, but in this case a roundup of online games that they found worthy of particular praise. Thus it amounts to a brief but direct and non-trivial mention.
 * A Computer Games World article, which is a separate article, which also lists the game as one of the ten best text-based games on the Web.
 * The Mud Connector review, which is inaccurately described by Cameron above - yes, one can submit a game for review, but this is standard practice at publications that do reviews - I've worked on peer reviewed journals that accept review copies of books. I see no evidence on TMC that they review every game they're asked to review (in fact, they expressly say that they do not). And while they suggest that people interested in becoming a reviewer contact them, I see no evidence that "anyone" can become a staff reviewer. Yes, they've had significant turnover, but this can be found in any print magazine. This line of attack on the source is querrelous at best - the fact of the matter is, the site has been cited in multiple academic sources, singled out as a reliable source on MUDs by experts such as Bartle, and is clearly a reliable source for this topic.


 * This last point gets at my extreme concern about this AfD, and the treatment of this article, which is that those arguing for its deletion seem to be putting the cart before the horse - the programmatic attack on The Mud Connector is one of a line of extremely disingenuous attacks made on the sourcing of this article. In the previous AfD, a print source, CGM, was rejected by the closer because, being print, it was unverified - a ludicrous policy that has no basis in accepted practice. And previously, attempts to discredit Bartle's blog as a source because of (completely speculative) claims that he might have played Threshold, and thus wasn't independent were made. The sheer vicious dogmatism of the attacks on the sourcing here are some of the worst faith arguing for deletion I have ever seen.


 * In any case, I would point out that the quality and sourcing of this article have improved dramatically since the previous version was first nominated for AfD, and there is evidence of more sources that are being worked on on the talk page. But we are dealing with what is clearly a significant online game - in addition to Bartle, Scott Jennings and Raph Koster have both expressed bafflement at the deletion of the previous version (though their articles lacked details on the game and so were not terribly useful as sources). These are three of the top experts on online gaming in existence. If they say it is notable, they are right. (And I say this as someone who hadn't heard of the game prior to this kerfuffle - I have no dog in this fight).


 * The sources exist. The article is improving. And there is strong evidence that this is a significant topic. Deletion, in this case, would be insane. Given active efforts to improve the article, I do not understand why people would prefer to marshall absurd arguments against the sources and work to eviscerate content. How is actively undermining good faith and productive efforts to write content improving the encyclopedia?


 * All of which is to say, keep. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the same sources that were rejected last time - only the blog is new. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're lying. When the article was last nominated, *only* the CGM source was present. The Bartle source, the GGW source, TopMudSites, and The Mud Connector are all new sources. Please get your facts straight before nominating articles for deletion. It really wastes people's time when they have to correct trivially checkable errors on your part. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no he's not. Every single source present was present at the time the debate was closed last time. As an adminstrator I should expect much better conduct out of you. At the time of nomination those sources were in the article but removed because there was concern about their reliability. They were brought up numerous times during the AfD, and when the AfD was closed every single one of those sources had been rejected as providing inadequate coverage to satisfy WP:N. The blog isn't even new, it was discussed and rejected as well during the previous AfD debate.--Crossmr (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be precise, the Computer Gaming World ref was added by User:Kallimina on 11 January 2009, following the DRV close. Bartle, TMS, TMC, and CGM/CGO were all provided at the AfD and edited into/out of the article while the AfD was open. One could make the argument that the AfD was too long and messy for anyone to bother to read it. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete . Other sources have already been refuted from previous AFD as not being significant, but the Richard Bartle's blog post is unfortunately not reliable since it was specifically made based on the last AFD - and thus is not independent of Wikipedia, and furthermore represents a conflict of interest and a possibly attempt to game the system (I am not aware if Bartle's a user or just a reader of WP).  As such, the source has to be rejected from even being used (it is not reliable) and with the remaining sources, we still have the same issue from the previous AFD, lack of significant coverage.  --M ASEM  15:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Only the CGM source was, to my knowledge, dealt with in the previous AfD. Cameron is dead wrong about this assertion. Every other source is new. And our COI policies do not apply to exterior sources. Nor does "independent" apply to Wikipedia - independence, for WP:N, applies to the subject of the article. Bartle is thus not independent for Richard Bartle, MUD (the software he coded), and a few other things. With no evidence that Bartle is a Wikipedia user, the "gaming the system" argument seems thin at best. We ought not treat the outside world with open hostility. The fact of the matter is, if Richard Bartle takes time out of his day to declare that Threshold is an important game, that is something that should be taken seriously. Citing a mound of policy in an attempt to say otherwise is silly. We're not making a careful legal decision here - we're trying to decide if something is worth having an article on. When Bartle, Jennings, and Koster all say a MUD is important and worth having an article on, one needs a pretty persuasive reason why we wouldn't have one. Especially when it is sourced to multiple independent and reliable sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Bartle article didn't have the timing and tone relating to the previous AFD, and thus could be considered "independent" of the discussion (not so much the source material), then I wouldn't have a problem; that, with the other sources being more in passing but at least there, shows something. But the Bartle article is extremely worrying - to that end, I have placed a request on the RS noticeboard (furthering the discussion) to see if there really is a problem with that source or not.  If it proves out to be ok, consider that my issue is nullified and this becomes a keep. --M ASEM  16:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Careful here. The independence of the source in the policy is a prohibition on being self-serving on the topic of the article, not complete independence from the wikipedia (although we probably wouldn't allow experts to go out, make a comment and then quote themselves!!!). We can and do have experts contributing to the wikipedia. In this particular case Bartle didn't write that particular MUD, and may be properly considered independent in the wikipedia, so his comments, as an expert, do confer notability.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep. The discussion at the RS noticeboard suggestions that I'm probably presuming too much here, and thus can assume that expert sources created by events prompted by WP are ok, thus showing no problem here. --M ASEM  00:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP Was there any time at all given between the creation of this new page and the motion to AfD? This seems increasingly irregular to me. Now we are looking at a Threshold article which is a non-promotional stub, with ever better referencing. The talk page notes that print sources are being gathered. I see a new online magazine reference, a blog from Richard Bartle. I see vast improvement in this version of the article than the original, so to me -- it would seem good faith to not immediately throw this one to the dogs. However, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, I think the referencing is more than sufficient already to claim notability for this stub article. Keep, keep, keep.  Donathin (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If print sources with significant coverage ever do show up, a deletion review can be started. Schuym1 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP Adequate sourcing for a popular culture subject. Fred Talk 16:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Per . Richard Bartle's coverage (an expert in the field) and the CGM article make this base the threshold of notability for games. --64.85.255.129 (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC) --Falcorian (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For god's sake. We have a bad image of nominating an article until deleted--look at most of the comments on the subject from those durn blogs. The sourcing is marginal, but it exists. The article was rewritten to expunge any sense of promotional language (and has been given loving care from some users). The comments about about Bartle being a "meatpuppet" or not reliable because he was pissed about the AfD need to be tossed out the window. Let's say we deleted an article on Laser cooling and Steven Chu wrote on his blog (maybe he has one!) that the subject was important enough to garner attention in an encyclopedia and we were foolish to delete it. Would we say "Steven Chu must be a meatpuppet" or his reliability must be compromised? Of course not. We would say that he is an expert in the field and we ought to take that opinion on board. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP Adequate sources, this Bartle guy's opinion seems to be expert and hence notable. The current position in the chart I have also verified, that I have verified it wouldn't change even if the chart went away- in the wikipedia notability is permanent.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The craze to delete articles is getting ridiculous.  The article obviously meets the requirements for sourcing and the arguments against the sources seem like excuses which are not backed up by Wikipedia policy.  It's still a bit stub-like, but that can be solved by letting people add more information--not deleting it entirely. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep, and may it serve as an informal precedent for the future. May it at least have some effect on those who might nominate what are adequate articles on these subjects, to show that this is viewed in the Wikipedia community (and elsewhere) as being destructive. They could show their good faith by instead working to further improve, not delete, such articles. The true meaning, acknowledged consciously or not, of these nominations is that MUDs are inherently unimportant. Such was said about most forms of art: Shakespeare's plays, novels, films, comics. There's enough of an historical track record that we should learn from it and give encouragement to  articles on new media form. DGG (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - two paragraphs actually is substantial (contrast "trivial"). No need to cut off our noses to spite our faces. Wily D  16:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe in using some common sense when applying our guidelines. There aren't that many MUDs with better sources, and MUDs are worthwhile subjects in my opinion anyway. Rl (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but still find fault on both sides of the discussion. The only reason this marginally passes for notability now is because of the ruckus caused by the meatpuppets who propagated the previous AFD, which seems to show that anyone can get their way if they troll and bully their way through (as also shown in the DRV). On the flipside, possibly a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, which serves to make editors look like dicks trying to game the system, as well. With that said, thanks to the editors who own the article who have improved it to a standard suitable for inclusion. MuZemike 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also add 24 inches of snow within ten hours as another reason for keeping. Please note that, for good reason of preventing "deletion-craziness" from taking over, that the AFD system is built with a slant towards keeping articles, just as the American judicial system insists that defendants not be found guilty unless proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt." In addition, unlike the last AFD, there is a good reason to close this one early as guideline as well as WP:IAR allows for that - the same with WP:SNOW deletions. MuZemike 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Correction: The AFD system is supposed to be built with a slant toward keeping articles.  Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way.  In this instance, the previous AfD showed an approximately even division between "keep" and "delete" (after excision of the SPA's and sockpuppets), yet it was closed as "delete".  The requirement that "lack of consensus defaults to 'keep'" is not always honored. JamesMLane t c 03:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * AfDs are not heavily trafficked (most times) if articles could be kept by "piling on" almost every article could be kept by half a dozen interested parties who were not obviously sock puppets. People arguing keep and delete have to keep their argument in line with policy and guideline. Policies and guidelines are considered to have community wide consensus. If a closing admin feels the delete or keep side's argument is more in line with policy it gets that extra pile of community consensus. 10,20, or 30 editors on an AfD wouldn't remotely put a dent in that.--Crossmr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources and content have continued to improve in the very small time period (2 days) since the article we re-enlisted for deletion. --Scandum (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Now more than adequately sourced Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, strongly, per most all above, and suggest a speedy keep. There does seem to be some misguided zeal to remove articles about Internet culture and fictional worlds, and in this particular case that zeal has led to results that have been justly noticed and criticized elsewhere.  This never ought to have become an issue in the first instance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and snow close this per DGG, et al. This nom (even if it were well founded, which I do not think it is) is not exactly likely to be helping Wikipedia's reputation, per Protonk. C'mon guys. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP nomination is just plain destructive for no good reason at all. I'll note that merely the argument on the talk page over sourcing the "the game doesn't allow minors" is a crystal clear indication that the WikiLawyers bent on deleting the article don't have a whiff of common sense between them. Jlambert (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You feel that one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia, WP:V, should be ignored for this article? We don't use less than adequate sources just because adequate ones aren't available. I'll also point you to WP:AGF, and WP:NPA while we're at it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those links point to reliable sources. Jlambert (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:V has a section on reliable sources. The other links are to remind you about the tone of your comment.--Crossmr (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again none of the links you posted above can be considered reliable. They point to an self-published open wiki by anonymous authors.  There also seems to be an enormous amount of contention as to what they mean as evidenced by the last delete discussion.  And "not having a whiff of common sense" is just an observation of a disability, not necessarily a personal attack. Jlambert (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources in the intro alone appear to be sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think any speedy keep criteria are met here. One could say that this should be snow closed, but Cameron put some diligence and effort into the nomination and I would prefer to see it run longer than a day. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Protonk stole my thunder here, given the unfortunate early closure of the earlier AfD, and the controversy that arose as a result, I think the better practice would be to let this AfD cycle through all time zones before any SNOW closes (and this does not qualify for speedy keep). On the merits of the nomination, this article provides what was lacking in the earlier incarnation. It may not be perfect; it doesn't have to be. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Let's not gut the database from the inside-out. Deleting this kind of article harms the encyclopedia and harms our reputation."'Wikipedia has lost its way, and obscure, interesting content is constantly in jeopardy of disappearing.' Hartman. M" Catchpole (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that articles shouldn't be kept solely because someone off-wiki bashes Wikipedia to a bloody pulp. In fact, it was this "bashing" that is causing notability of this game, hence my comment above. (Not that it excuses what I think is a flimsy nom this time around.) MuZemike 01:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel this subject is covered by that statement than you're admitting this is not a notable subject.--Crossmr (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and protect against it being turned into what the other article was. Also advise against a snowball close. Look what trouble happened the last time the AfD closed early. Themfromspace (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep My understanding of WP:RS tells me that the sources are sufficient enough. I would also advise against snowball close and let this AfD run its course. DDDtriple3 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has good sourcing now, which is more than one can say about a great many subjects around here, despite claims made by Cameron. Samson (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I never saw the deleted version, but based upon the sources now, I think it meets sourcing requirements. I strongly advise regulars to AFD read that blog Catchpole links to above. Not only is it one of the most strongly-worded critcisms I've seen of Wikipedia in awhile, I think it's an important reality check to see what sort of impact AFD and the rush to delete makes on the non-Wikipedia world. If the article cited was a lone wolf in the wilderness I'd see it as being just that, a lone wolf, but it's not. Incidentally, I believe we're into snowball keep territory now. 23skidoo (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The full history of the article is available. You can see the deleted version here: .--Crossmr (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, however I do not take past versions of an article into account on AFD (unless vandalism occurs, of course) because it's the version currently up that's "on trial" and my understanding is this nomination is with regards to the new version. 23skidoo (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Someone linked to this blog post earlier in this discussion. The link seems to be dead; is there another site for this? seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Looks like just a typo, correct link is this. Ismarc (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowball Keep - Article seems to meet all sourcing criteria and we have an obviously overwhelming consensus here. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: sourcing for unconventional subjects will by definition be found in unconventional references. Furthermore the needless and divisive deleting of material certain editors seem to think to not be good enough for Wikipedia needs to stop --Martin Wisse (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not convinced of any significant coverage in sources independent of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Schuym1 (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because a trivial mention in print (covered by WP:N as not conveying notability) a questionable review of unknown status, and a blog post generated specifically to try and generate notability for a subject don't cut it for me.--Crossmr (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making your !vote clear. Schuym1 (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the problem. It doesn't cut it "for you" so naturally your gut reaction is to delete because it can't possibly cut it for anyone else either. This is exactly why non-experts shouldn't be judging the notability of anything, and is exactly why WP:N isn't a policy but a guideline. Samson (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * People should go by WP:N because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Schuym1 (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you have a problem with how the notability guideline is, bring it up on the talk page of the guideline which I doubt that would change anything on the guideline because the reason why the guideline exists is because it is accepted by the majority of the community. Schuym1 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N is a guideline, not a pillar. If editors oppose it, unilaterally or on a case-by-case basis, it has no consensus and thus no meaning. On the other hand, WP:IGNORE is a pillar; local consensus can override global consensus unless it conflicts the five pillars. It has here. Estemi (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:CONSENSUS which is a binding policy explicitly states that local consensus cannot outweigh global consensus. Things which are guidelines are only a step removed from policy, and have at least enough consensus to move it beyond essay.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well damn. WP:IGNORE and WP:CONEXCEPT, two official policies, are totally incompatible. You can break a rule to improve the encyclopedia, but you can't break a rule locally unless everyone decides to change the rule on a global level? I admit the policy seems to side with you here, but this boggles my mind. Estemi (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are no binding policies. Consider our very first rule. Policies are things you're usually supposed to do, unless you have a good reason not to.  (The "good" qualifier is probably not needed for guidelines). Wily D  16:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I might as well add another centimeter of snow. Keep per arguments made above and below. Estemi (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It can only be a snow keep if the keep !voters say why something meets a guideline. AFD is not a vote. Schuym1 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have to apply our notability standards pragmatically.  The simple fact is that, when it comes to MUDs, the notability of even a notable subject isn't reflected in readily accessible media the way it would be in other fields. JamesMLane t c 03:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: per the reason given in the nomination and per Crossmr. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep-- The subject is notable per obvious consensus. (WP:SNOW) --J.Mundo (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources have been discussed and I have requested to individually cover each one on the talk page, however, this has not been done.   Admin who closed the Deletion review said the sources seemed to establish notability.--Theblog (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some more sources (some may have been mentioned above) that discuss threshold & wikipedia, I'm not saying they are all reliable or even usable, but they should be individually vetted before deletion is considered.        Off hand I'd say Koster and maybe massivley are RS, but it needs more investigation.  --Theblog (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please give a link to the deletion review so !voters can determine if that was the right thing for the admin to do. Schuym1 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here you go:  --Theblog (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per all of the above. And here's to hoping this is the straw that broke the deletionists' back. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith, please, and refrain from name-calling. MuZemike 22:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the name calling, actually. Could you propose a different wording that conveys the notion that this AfD might possibly be the thing that convinces certain editors (who count themselves among the deletionists) that they are misguided, and that deletionism at the cost of embarrassing the project is not a good approach, but that meets whatever standard that, in your estimation, the above wording failed? Because it is an important, and valid, point, that needs making. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear from how some use it on-wiki that "deletionist" is rapidly becoming a pejorative term in the same manner as "chauvinist", and that furthermore its use here is intended as a polarizing term. But I digress; we are no longer talking about the deletion of this article, and therefore have stepped outside the scope of this deletion discussion. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Adequately sourced, adequately notable. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of text-based MMORPGs (or some other broader article) and give brief coverage there. The sources provided are either significant but not reliable, or reliable but not significant. Marasmusine (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral Notability guidelines speak of a presumption of notability, established by objective evidence such as substantial coverage in reliable sources. In specific topic areas, such as music and sport, there exist specialized guidelines which permit the use of less-substantial coverage to establish a presumption of notability. It remains unclear to me whether a lesser standard can or should be applied here. As to whether the recent media coverage passes WP:GNG, I remain skeptical but unsure as to where the line is drawn. However, it seems that at worst a redirect per Marasmusine should be the result. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks notable and well sourced to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Would appear those who have edited the article had created one that is adequately sourced. Good to get it expanded, but enough for an article. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, sources suggest marginal notability. Everyking (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2009 (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.