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, no convincing counterarguments made to keep the article. The vast majority of the keep comments are attacks on the nominator which neatly sidestep the question of this MUD's notability. Kimchi.sg 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark and Shattered Lands[edit]

Non-notable Bjsiders 13:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search returns less than 300 hits, Alexa ranking for the web site is 1,391,069.

• Delete relatively few MU*s need their own articles, and I don't think this is among them. I get 83 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: TjMarshal (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep, I fail to see reason why this entry should be deleted, given the comments here. I fail to find BjSiders has any credible reason to nominate it thusly, given his personal previous connection to the game. I believe this vote should be cancelled, and the article allowed to remain, at least until a more credible user can debate the article's relevance. As well, should this article be deleted, then it must as well hold true for all text-based computer games. The bottom line here is, this is an actual game, with many thousands of people who have played it or at least know what it is. Personal opinion of said game should never be a valid reason for deleting an article here. TjMarshal 13:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Non-notable, fails WP:WEB. 125 users at a time isn't big enough to be notable. --PresN 14:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Peephole 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB Thε Halo ^Θ 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP has approximately 1,391,069 articles so this one may be just the last. Also, 391 is the year when : King Gwanggaeto the Great of Goguryeo ascends to the throne :). --DLL 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is not an acceptable guideline for deletion, nor is Alexa ranking. Regardless, that many users on at any given time is huge for a MUD. (It could still stand to be trimmed a good deal, though.) --Keolah 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So if I created a website yesterday, Google gave zero hits, Alexa gave no ranking, and the website was obviously very unimportant (say, I posted pictures of my dog, and that's it), this website could have its own article on WP? It couldn't be deleted simply for being non-notable? -- Kicking222 19:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - We're not talking about a personal homepage, though. We're talking about a game that obviously exists, has been around for years, has a substantial playerbase, and is quite firmly on the level of "extremely large" so far as muds go. You may or may not realize that most muds consider themselves glad to have 10-20 players. And yes, notability isn't a criteria for whether a subject should have an article, verifiability, however, is. Or would you argue that we should not have articles on, say, Tropical Storm Lee (2005), which existed for 3 days and did nothing of import?
      • Notability is an interpretation of WP:NOT (the part about indiscriminate collections of info), which is a deletion criterion and Wikipedia policy. Articles are deleted for lack of notability all the time, so your opinion is in the minority here. Recury 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tropical storm lee was probably national news at the time, depending on where it went and what it did. Millions of people knew about it. A MUD is another matter. Also, the 125 users figure is peak, not a rolling average. Bjsiders 19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tropical Storm Lee existence was discussed ad nauseam, so that isn't particularily the best example you can give. The only reason it was decided to keep it was because articles on the rest of the storms of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season had articles, so it couldn't be the only odd one. By the way, Bjsiders, thanks for that line. It was immortalized in WikiProject Tropical cyclones's latest newsletter... Titoxd^(?!?) 06:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Recury 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, totally non-notable. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet relevant notability guidelines. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: 69.6.167.240 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep. Article was nominated by BSiders due to him being exposed to out to get this MUD due to him being fired from said MUD 10 years ago. Kind of sad, really.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.6.167.240 (talk • contribs) .

— Possible single purpose account: Jinx Oldschool (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep. Notability is not an acceptable guideline for deletion, nor is Alexa ranking. This is also one of the most successful MUDS of all time and stands tall after being online for over a decade.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jinx Oldschool (talk • contribs) .
  • Yes it is, see above. Recury 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article doesn't assert notability. I'd also like to note that Jinx Oldschool has only four edits, two of which are to finish an attack AFD listing on the nominator's user page. Ehheh 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I nominated the users page for deletion for the same reason he nominated DSL for deletion. He's not notable. Why do you guys keep deleting it since I followed the same procedure as he? Isn't that against the rules you keep quoting to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.167.240 (talk • contribs)
  • You don't get to vote again. Also, what are you talking about? Recury 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am talking about the FACT that BSiders used to work for DSL, he was fired, and is now nominating it for deletion? If that doesn't fit against any sort of personal attack/agenda rules, than this site truely is a joke. Also, this "nomination" was given after he's spent the last few months posting lies about the game on its article. This is all personally motivated by a vengful user who has an obvious agenda.
      • If that is true, then the AFD should be closed since it is a bad faith nomination. But I should say that even if it is closed, I will put it up for AFD myself since I don't think it deserves an article. Recury 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think the least examination of my record here will bear out that this is not a bad faith edit. Considering that an army of editors recently sprung up to cheerlead for the article in question, remove all non-positive from it, personally attack me, and vandalize my user page, I'm hardly the one whose faith ought to be questioned here. Bjsiders 01:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For what it is worth, even if the nominator had nominated the article in bad faith, other users have commented in good faith, so this is by no means a speedy close. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: 63.166.155.221 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep. This is one of the most successful MUDS in history, period. Also, there is no doubt that this IS a bad faith nomination. BSiders nominated this as a result of being unable to post his attempts to defame and slander the game that fired him and the owner of said game. If you doubt this, simply go read the history of edits on the game and count how many false accusations in the "controversy" sections BSiders and the IP of BSiders have posted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.166.155.221 (talk • contribs) .
  • Once again, I gladly invite any curious party to examine my editing history on the DSL article and any other articles on Wikipedia. You'll find no compelling evidence of bad faith editors or misbehavior. I wrote extensive laudatory material about the "owner of said game" and it was removed. Please feel free to review my record and make your judgments on the faith of this nomination accordingly. I'm not sure what IP you're referring to, considering that I use no less than six different methods of connecting to the internet, two of which are cable internet services where the IP can be recycled and changed every 8-12 hours. I have a login and I make my edits exclusively from it. I can also be found on record REVERTING material in the article that was unfair and libelous. Bjsiders 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: 69.6.167.240 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Non-Notable is not a valid reason for deletion. This rule does not exist here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy nor here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT. This is beside the point that the article and the MUD is very notable. But anywhere, someone please point out this non-notable rule? Where is that listed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.6.167.240 (talk • contribs) .
  • Notability is an interpretation of WP:NOT (the part about indiscriminate collections of info), which is a deletion criterion and Wikipedia policy. Recury 14:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Read the articles for deletion log for any given day, and you'll find dozens of articles removed for non-notability. As said above, it's an interpretation of what Wikipedia is not, and is a very ingrained part of the policy here, to the point where standards of notability exist for a number of different media and topics. For more information, see Wikipedia:Notability_criteria. There are a number of categories into which Dark and Shattered Lands might fall, including web sites, fiction, and software, and it fails in all three. Even as MUDs go, it's not especially notable. Large MUDs sport user populations in the a thousand or more simultaneous logins. DSL never, at the height of its popularity, close. That DSL is successful goes without saying. But being successful doesn't make something notable. It's not even especially notable within the mudding community. Aardwolf is a notable MUD. Sojourn is another. Bjsiders 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentNice try BUT Aard has only 170 people on at current time, 50 more than DSL and they allow multiple logins per account. DSL's login are all unique. Also, Sojourn does not exist anymore. No mud has over 1000 simutanious unique logins at one time. Also, I'll remind you that you do not speak for the so called "mudding community".69.6.167.240 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sorry to burst your bubble, but Aardwolf has a very strong policy against multiplaying, and as I'm writing this there are over 300 users logged in. And this isn't peak time! Winklerd 16:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Something no longer existing is not sufficient evidence for its non-notability. The Byzantine Empire isn't around anymore, should we remove its article, too? Last time I logged into DSL there were 70 people on. Is that a fair body of evidence to cite DSL as only having 50 logins on average? Also, do you have a source for your claim that no mud has over 1,000 simultaneous logins? Bjsiders 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Cdabc (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep. Very sad that the person nominating it for deletion can still be holding a grudge after all these years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdabc (talk • contribs) .

— Possible single purpose account: Victoriam (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep, As a MUD that has existed for ten years, Dark and Shattered lands has been a part of the lives of hundreds upon hundreds of people. Some of the information in the histories in this article can only be found at this source. Players use this page, and it is very helpful... not only to them but to anyone else who would like to know about the things that do not come up during play. DSL has been one of a kind in many ways, and I think it would be a travesty to delete this article. --Victoriam 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Treeguardee (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep, In a day and age that most are playing visual games, the fact that even 50 people KNOW about this Mud, is an accomplishment in itself. To have upwards of more then 50 individual logins a day, is more proof that the world and game of Dark and Shattered Lands is by the very least notable. I am unsure of the real purpose of wanting to remove the article, those who do not find it notable need not acknowledge its exsistence by looking at it, and those who find it useful have the ability to come and look. I myself have used it, I know others who have used it. We can at least establish the fact it is indeed being looked at, as to how many does it really matter to those mature enough to know that pretty much anything can be found on this site. Keep it, please --Treeguardee 18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pretty much everything is not found on this site, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate that the DSL article either does or does not belong. Statements like, "it belongs because basically anything belongs here" are the exact opposite of a keep reason. Perhaps this discussion can eventually spur something more concrete, such as a "notability" standard for muds and video games. DSL may very well belong here but under current guidelines, that's less than apparant. Bjsiders 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sorry you mistook my general statement as being more then what it was, other then a general statement. I suppose what I would love to know then is, how often does the material on this site go through a keep or toss state. Further more to what is there to gain from having it removed? I am not sure I am entirely witnessing the point of having something that could easily be "not looked at" if it offends or does not fit a portion of people's definition of belonging here. Notability or not. Understand that for a very large community of players, it is notable. While it may not be for the entire world or for the entire community of mudding individuals for those that do play this game, it is notable. And by even recommending this article to be removed you are telling a very real number of people that their game is not notable enough to have an article of this fashion. Its sort of silly isn't it?--Treeguardee 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All material is constantly in a state of consideration as to whether or not it should be kept or removed, because anybody can nominate any regular article for deletion at any time. A lot of things are very notable to the right community. My webcomic was incredibly notable to me. But it was not notable enough to the public at large to justify having its own article here, or even to be LISTED here with other web comics. Yes, we would be telling a real number of people that their game is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. That's not silly, it's called having the standard. The guy who invented MUDs doesn't even get his own article. It's not because he wasn't an important or worthwhile human being, it's because notability, in the sense of an on-line encyclopedia, has to involve more than the emotional attachment of a few hundred people. Dark and Shattered Lands may meet that criteria. I've seen no evidence so far that it does, and the arguments present so far have consisted almost entirely of personal attacks on me, the nominator, emotional pleas, challenges to Wikipedia policy, and challenges to the definition of notability. Only the latter stands any chance of keeping the article, and the challenges presented are pretty unconvincing. The game's long tenure is perhaps the most compelling argument that could be made, but LOTS of MUDs lasted ten years and almost certainly do not merit their own article. Our challenge is to determine what merits notability for a MUD. Tenure is certainly one of those things, but it is not, in my opinion, sufficient. Bjsiders 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment - Actually, the guy who invented muds does have his own article. And anyway, the article needs improvement, not deletion. I have never actually played this mud, and yet I've heard of it, in spite of not even actually having been too involved in the mudding community. Oh, and FYI, Tropical Storm Lee did nothing, it was never a threat to land, it was barely even a tropical storm, out in the middle of the ocean. :P --Keolah 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I do agree that this article does need improvements. If one looks at the discussion held during the construction of this article, one can see that there was debate upon which facts should be cosidered for inclusion. This article could be developed with more body and substance if it is given time to do such.Cufece 18:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, firstly I'm not attacking you, nor have I.But I do find it silly that out of all things you could of possible decided to lend your strong opinion on was an article about a game. It does no real harm to allow it to remain, for those that really have no invested interest in its stay or go. Right? I mean do you sleep worse at night knowing its here? But I digress, what proof are you looking for? Numbers of players? Number of hits? Number of responses here? A petition, girls with wet t-shirts that say "I love DSL"? I would like to know what exactly you are looking for.--Treeguardee 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again, "it doesn't hurt to keep it" is not sufficient grounds to keep it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Everybody with a web page or a MUD doesn't get to have a page here. People begin to treat Wikipedia as an advertising opportunity and that's not what it is. This discussion is about grounds for keeping or removing the article, you need to stop making the discussion about me personally. What exactly are we looking for? Some evidence that this game is notable enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia. A half dozen astroturfing users who have been directed to this article by the MUD's administration aren't it. Neither are emotional appeals ("but I met my wife on DSL!"), personal attacks ("the nominator is just a bitter jerk!"), speculation about the nominator's sleep habits, insistance that nobody is harmed by the article's presence, or almost anything else that's been presented by the "keep" crowd. We have good evidence using Wikipedia standards that the game is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Nobody has presented anything to the contrary yet. Bjsiders 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My husband, and its not an emotional attachment that keeps me coming back and responding to you. Its an article in a web encyclopedia I will not cry if its removed, because eventually it will be posted somewhere else, and in short all anyone did was remove it from one web source. Hence my, what's the differece attitude. And again, at no point have I made any personal attacks to you, I thought we were being quite civilalized. However, do not for one moment believe that either side here is solely working on a unbiased opinion, that itself is just plain silly. But dispite that, I could give a rat's backside as to what, why or whatever your reasons are for doing this, or how many friends you may have called in or how many friends this person told to post here, or how tall joe the construction guy is, as you say its not relevant to the point we are discussing. However, what you have still failed to produce for me is, exactly what is needed. You claim it has not been provided and yet you cannot claim what that proof is. Below you state some sort of published work to give it credit or notablility. How many muds that others claim are notable, have these? What lends one mud notability and not this one? --68.45.253.107 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't say you were attacking me personally. I said that one of the arguments for not deleting the article has been personal attacks and speculation about me. I have provided evidence for this article's subject not meeting notability criteria on Wikipedia, and the community of editors has overwhelmingly agreed. The onus is on you you disagree to demonstrate that the article does belong on Wikipedia. One method would be to demonstrate that the game is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. A game can be plenty notable but still not notable enough to belong here. We have guidelines in place, look them up. You have not provided evidence that DSL is notable enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia. That evidence could be: a reference to DSL in national media, a reference to DSL in academic research, sufficient Google hits, sufficient Alexa ranking. Look at the requirements for notability in software, web sites, or even organizations. See if you can meet it. We don't have a specific MUD notability standard, I proposed working towards one, nobody expressed any interest. The onus is not on me to provide you with the key to preserving this article. I proposed its deletion and cited evidence. If you want it kept, you need a reason. What is your reason? That hundreds of people play it? That's not good enough. That you met your husband through it? Not good enough. Bjsiders 15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Okay, now we are were I want to be. So I can ask this, every mud listed here then has met things like, being printed in a newspaper or other such media, or has enough hits, sufficient Alexa ranking and so forth, yes? And as for the personal attacks, did you expect it to look any other way that if it were true you had been a jaded ex-whatever of the game, it would be seen as anything else then a jaded player having a tantrum? You might look at this way then, everyone who has an emotional attachment in even the slightest, not post? As I said before, no one can pretend to be unbiased here. There is emotional attachment all around. Hate, love, so forth and so on the circle will go. But thank you for pointing some things that those who choose to keep this open or not, will be looking for. --68.45.253.107 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure that there are other MUD articles that don't meet the notability standards, either. But that's not an argument for keeping this article - it just means that someone who likes contributing in that way ought to go through the MUD articles and list the other nonnotables on AFD. Ehheh 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Cufece (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep, An online game could be considered notable if it has an impact beyond the game play itself. In that aspect, this article is about something notable. This game has been used as a teaching aid for a psychology class, several users have found positions of employment through playing this mud, and 30 or more couples have met and married while playing this game producing over 15 children. --Cufece 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That stuff all sounds like good arguments for notability, if they can be referenced. It would be a good idea to get some third party sources for that information, and put it into the article. Ehheh 22:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I happen to be one of those couples and have a child all due to DSL. If it were not for the game, I would not have met my husband, whom shares the same crazy interest in Mud's.--Treeguardee 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The psychology class in particular lends notability. The rest of that is stuff that happens every day in chat rooms, and it certainly is not sufficient to qualify notability. If it were, every IRC channel and chat room every conceived deserves an article. Bjsiders 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That psychology class was strange enough, but isn't the first class or use of DSL in a school. My question is, do you need a signed document from the school to believe it? And while that stuff may happen everyday in chat rooms, try explaining it to real people that it happened on a game, its far less common to hear. Trust me, it wasn't easy telling my family, oh this guy I'm going to marry? Where did I meet him? Yeah..you see...there's this thing called a mud...--Treeguardee 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, that's an emotional appeal and not grounds for notability. If DSL has been referenced in a published work somewhere, it would lend tremendously to its notability. An on-line reference is preferred to a signed document but yes, the claim alone is insufficient. Anybody can claim that their MUD, BBS, comic, web page, etc, was referenced by an academic setting. Bjsiders 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The Obvious Problem Here IF THIS ARTICLE WAS SO "NOT-NOTABLE", then WHY did BSiders spend so much time contributing to it? He only nominated it for deletion after he had been called out for trying to smear this game and its owners. If this is not a bad faith nomination, then there is no such thing.69.6.167.240 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is about whether the article should be kept or removed. Attempts to make it about me are not going to advance the discussion. I originally got involved in the DSL article because Wikipedia policy required my sign-off on some material reposted there on which I own the copyright. Bjsiders 15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do not own ANY copyright to anything DSL related. I was an immortal from day one and to be one, you have to understand that any content developed for this game is owned by the game, not you. This was discussed publically with every one. Just like when game developers write code for a game, the game company owns the code, not the content developer.69.6.167.240 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose Kender, Ogres, and Minotaurs are the intellectual property of Tony Allen and DSL, then? Run that by the legal staff at Wizards of the Coast. You don't own a copyright on something that you didn't create unless a contract of some form (for example, employment) has been entered into by both parties. I never agreed to any contract of any sort. The entire DSL project was originally a an offspring of DragonLance that, in many cases, didn't even bother to change names. Kender. Conclave. Moon magic, etc. Be careful which slings you launch about who owns what intellectual property, you're sitting on a pile of intellectual piracy as it is. So are most MUDs, I'm not uniquely indicting DSL, but it's a bit vexing to have anybody insist that a MUD owns a copyright to somebody else's work, when said game is a collection of copyright violations itself. You produce a signed contract with my name on it, I'll agree that I have no intellectual property involved in DSL. Bjsiders 03:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By your logic, Blizzard entertainment doesn't own the copyright to their own game because they used Elves and Dwarves. You own NO part of DSL. None. Zilch. And if you were such a expert on copyrights, you wouldn't have helped used the stolen DSL code 8 years ago to set up a new mud using original DSL races like the Shalonesti elves. You own no copyright for DSL, period. Quit pretending that you do.
        • They own the copyright to the code because they paid people to write it. A contract. I'm not pretending, that's how the copyright system works, I'm sorry if you find it inconvenient. I didn't help anybody set up a MUD using stolen code, and even if I did, I don't see how that bears on my knowledge of copyright law. Bjsiders 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am in the game development business. You are not. We do not sign contracts. It is understood as a practice of general law that when you work on someones else's project, they own it. The companies, not the employees. Again, you own nothing. Is that what started this attack on the game? Or was it the fact that DSL stood tall when ALL of your projects failed?69.6.167.240 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am in the legal business. You are not. You do not sign contracts, but you do hire people, and employment is an implied contract. I was never employed, and in the absence of an implied contract, you need a real one. What company did DSL belong to during my tenure there? None. DSL wasn't moved under the umbrella of any kind of private business ownership until after I had departed. In fact, some of the code I contributed was written for another project of my own first, and then copied to DSL. Again, it's not a big deal, I'm not demanding it be removed or anything else, but please don't accuse me of making claims to what's not mine. Bjsiders 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are a student, not exactly in the legal business. Also, Allen Games was established in 1995 which is verifable by myself and the other imms who were there from the beginning as well as the State of Alabama in which he registered the business. This was all common knowledge even before you became a part of the project. Also, per Tony Allen, he has taken the appropriate legal measures to legally copyright his game. Its obvious that being historically accurate isn't exactly something you are concerned with, but I'm afraid you are just going to have to accept that fact that you own no part of this game that you consider to be so "non-notable".69.6.167.240 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Then Allen Games failed to inform me of any conditions of my employment, and also failed to compensate me. For a contract to be valid, those beholden to it must at least be aware of it. What legal measures where taken to copyright code that Mr. Allen did not write? Bjsiders 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB and Google. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just so we are kosher on the goggle part, wikipedia even states its inconsistant and not a source of definitive terms of notability.--68.45.253.107 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, 68.45.253.107. However, as this is a computer-based item, it should have a LOT of google search results if it is notable. The "Google Hit Test" is used in almost all AfDs that involve web or computer based products or groups, although it is not Wikipedia policy. However, it is still a notability test. Also, see WP:WEB and WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete. Srose (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Muds do not have hundreds of thousands of players on at any given time, ever. Not even some of the most popular MMORPGs have been around as long, either. So far as muds go, it's extremely "notable". I know perfectly well that the average mud is lucky to have 10 players and only lasts a couple years if that. I know that because I ran my own mud for three years, and regardless of how great and innovative I think it is, you don't see me putting up articles about it. Regardless, WP:NNOT. While "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", I don't think all the "notability" that gets flying around all the time is quite warranted, even when, in context, something is very notable. Also, think of this, if there's over 100 people online at a given time, how many people must have played it at some point or another? Tens of thousand? Hundreds? Check out this recent AfD for a game I'd call considerably less "notable" (has been around a lot less time and far fewer players) that nonetheless was kept. --Keolah 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still feel that this article violates WP:WEB, no matter what category of website it is. I seriously doubt that "tens of thousand[s]" of people have played this game if it has an Alexa ranking in the millions. However, if this is kept, I would say that it should be trimmed down a little and checked for copyvios. It's quite lengthy and reads like a game guide. Srose (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Alexa doesn't reply, as it isn't actually a website. Muds run off telnet protocol, not http, and telnet activity is not taken into account with such things as Google and Alexa. And yes, I've never argued that about 90% of the article needs to be deleted. --Keolah 20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - If nothing else comes of this, I think we need to start drafting a policy for MUDs. Someone needs to figure out how we can establish notability for this type of thing. Srose (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I would agree that there should be established guidelines on what makes a mud notable enough to warrant entry. This article does have the potential to develop into an example of what content should be included in an article about a notable mud. Several have given various reasons as to why this article is about a notable mud and as it has been pointed out, this article does need improvement to highlight what has been mentioned as reasons for its notability.Cufece 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Again, I agree, and I mentioned this a few days ago. It could be as simple as saying, "a MUD with a tenure exceeding 6 years is notable by definition," or "a mud whose lifespan was at least 60 months" is notable. DSL (and hundreds of others) qualify by default. Or perhaps minimum traffic. I dislike this one, however, because it means that MUD admins who want their game listed can simply inflate traffic figures since they can code the game to report however many logins they want. Page hits on the web site isn't completely fair because not every player is going to view the web site, but considering that DSL doesn't have in-game notes anymore and 100% of non realtime player communication takes place on their web site, an Alexa ranking is probably a pretty assessment of the game's popularity and notability. This won't be the case for all games, however. DSL may even be a rare exception and it doesn't deserve to be penalized because of that. So what standards DO make sense? Tenure strikes me as a critical one, but hell I ran a game that was up for almost five years and never had more than 2 or 3 people on it. Does it deserve an article? God forbid. Perhaps a proper comparison is web comics -- it's a medium with a tiny handful of big hitters, and a legion thousands-strong of wannabes. What's the standard for a webcomic having its own article? What qualifies as notability for a webcomic as compared to other webcomics? What percentage of comics qualify? We may then be able to abstract those standards to come up with a way to distinguish a qualifying from an unqualifying MUD. I would respectfully suggest that the various astroturfing accounts be discouraged from getting involved in any such debate, because I think it's pretty clear that they'll advocate for any standard that's loose enough to allow DSL to qualify. For my part, I don't care whether DSL qualifies or not. Going by the tenure standard, I'm strongly inclined to say it would. Bjsiders 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Which brings me to ask once again, why nominate it for deletion then? Although we all know the answer to that.69.6.167.240 13:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Respectfully I take offense to your judgement of other accounts being made here to discuss this debate. Is it true that I made an account here for just such a thing. Yes quite frankly I did. I'm also a working professional that has been on discussion boards for setting standards up in the industry I work in. I will also state that there are probably more just like me that have done just such a thing as well and our comments have been nothing more than countering any statements that have not been true. I don't know you personally, you don't know me and I really don't care if I know you or not. You have also contradicted yourself a few times during this whole entire debate. First you say that the DSL article should be removed because it's not notable. Further down you state that on your proposed list of requirements it would meet 2 of them and that you say it should. So which is it? Even in this statement you are saying that it should. So yes, why is this being nominated for deletion? In most of your discussions you keep referring to WebComics not being recognized as notable enough to warrant its own article. What do WebComics have to do with an article about a MUD? They are two completely different genres that should not fall under the same standards of notability. If you have issue with how WebComics are handled in regards to articles, would it not be better to discuss them elsewhere rather than taking it to a discussion on whether or not THIS particular article should remain? WebComics and its subsequent guidelines for notability have nothing to do with this particular discussion. I will state this quite plainly here, I will agree with any set standard that is in place that removes the chances of bias, regardless if I have played on that site or not.Cdabc 18:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're offended that your account was tagged as being exactly what you admit it is? The statements made here have consisted of much more than "countering statements that [are not] true." Some of it has been personal attacks. Some of it has been blatant astroturfing. And some of it has indeed been fact correction. I nominated DSL's article for deletion because I don't think it merits its own article. As the discussion has unfolded, it appears that having an objective standard to measure MUDs by would be helpful. I proposed one. DSL would happen to qualify under it. So be it. I'll take an objective standard over an arbitrary discussion, even if it means that subjects that I don't think merit an article end up getting one. I mentioned webcomics because it's a somewhat analogous situation. Webcomics consist of a tiny handful of big names in a sea of anonymous and unotable entries. There are thousands of web comics that nobody has ever heard of, and a few dozen that anybody has. MUDs are similar. However, the media are different (telnet vs http) and so our metrics and standards would have to be different. I've been trying to hammer some out, nobody has really been helping, only criticizing. I don't have any issues with how web comic notability is defined. Bjsiders 21:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No I'm taking offense to the fact that just because we had made accounts we should be discouraged from speaking or contributing to the subject, when even as you had stated some of these people have made factual corrections for you. You still have not stated though as to why exactly you want it deleted. You said to you it doesn't merit it, on what judgement are you drawing that conclusion? If someone wrote an article about some other obscure MUD would you still be of the same opinion? That is not a personal attack on you, just a mere question. The problem with a great many things on the web, all numbers can be skewed to reflect how people want. So you have to take a great many things at faith. There are only certain things you can ever claim to be exact and verifiable. The day the game started and the day the game closes. # of users on at a time, again as was stated previously, MUDS that permit multiple logins skew that #. Do all of the MUDS report that they allow this? Chances are some do and a lot don't. I don't claim to know every single MUD out there. You can certainly use the # of average players a day on the game as one of the criteria, odds are it will reflect near an actual, but it can't be one of the deciding factors. Again longevity of the game, as another person pointed out, why you chose 80 mths over something more rounded I don't know, but in my opinion in this day and age, if a game lasts over 5 yrs and is still in regular use, it is a game of note. Sure having a write up in a paper, newspaper, magazine.. but what sort of write up are you suggesting here. Because there was actually a write up on two of the players on the game that I know of in their wedding announcement that DID mention DSL as being the place where they had met (including a brief outlying of the type of game it was. Which if you agree that that is an acceptable write-up, as lots of people do read the wedding announcement pages of their local paper, I'll try to track them down in order to obtain a copy of that for you. Cdabc 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • Ah, I see the source of the misunderstanding. The point of the "single purpose account" flag is not to "discourage" anybody from speaking or contributing, but to distinguish experienced members of the Wikipedia community from possible cheerleaders or astroturfers. Your opinion is as valid as everybody else's, but if there are 10 seasoned Wikipedia editors who say one thing, and 50 SPAs that say the opposite, it smells like astroturfing. Nobody doubts your sincerity or wishes for you to not talk at all. The reason I think the DSL article ought to be removed is that the game is not especially notable, even for a MUD. It's major notability stems from the various controversies surrounding it, especially in its first few years (note: well after I was not involved in the project). I could document them, but I'd simply be accused of lying and making things up to "bash" to "slander" the game. If the DSL article is going to be so sanitized and diluted as to only contain a summary of the in-game history a few lists of features, very few of which are especially interesting or unique to DSL, then it's not really all that notable as compared to any other MUD. You asked, If someone wrote an article about some other obscure MUD would you still be of the same opinion? Absolutely. I've worked on dozens on MUDs, several of which are still around, one of which is just as tenured as DSL and has nearly as large a player base. I'm not making an article about it, and I'd discourage anybody from doing so. It's not a notable game. You asked, why [would] you chose 80 mths over something more rounded. I just pulled a number out of a hat. Five years seemed too short, ten seemed too long. The idea was not to suggest THE number we have to follow, but to get the idea out there and let the community debate how long the tenure actually should be. Regretfully, this hasn't really happened yet. You said, if a game lasts over 5 yrs and is still in regular use, it is a game of note. For a game starting now, I'd agree. If another game started when DSL did and died out after 5 years, I'd say no. You asked, what sort of write up are you suggesting here. There was a MUD that got mentioned once in an issue of PC Gamer in the mid-nights. Imperial City or City of Dreams or something. That alone makes it notable, in my opinion. Anything that might elevate the game to the level of being exposed to either national media (e.g., published in a magazine that enjoys national circulation), or a work of academic repute. What kind of write-up? In this case it was just a mention by an author, that he'd played Ultima On-Line and EverQuest and found a text-MUD to be a more immersive roleplaying experience. A wedding announcement is not a matter of the game making news. Anybody can put almost anything in a wedding announcement. I'm talking about the game being featured in a story, where it has earned the attention of people who are not involved in it. There's the key distinction. The genesis of the mention is critical. If I'm a MUD player who happens to be on the faculty at the University of Dayton and I wrote my graduate thesis about the MUD, that's not notable. I play it. If a professor who is not involved in it decides to study it and write about it, that is notable. Clearly, there's something unique or notable about the community/game that warranted an academic taking a professional interest in it. A couple of players mentioning DSL in their wedding announcement is not notable. Bjsiders 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Minor Correction - This game still uses in-game notes extensivly. It does have a web forum in addition to in-game notes for discussion reguarding the game and other items of interest to those that may or may not play this game. Also, not everyone that plays this game utilizes the web forum. Cufece 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Major Correction That's not minor, it cancels my entire point about DSL, thank you for bringing that up. Bjsiders 04:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Bjsiders is a good man, and has made important contributions to many articles, but any MUD that has lasted this long is worth notice. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it contains information no other encyclopedia has. What other encyclopedia has articles about every single episode of Star Trek! Rick Norwood 19:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I was dead, I would be rolling over in my grave. Recury 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving this from the talk page to here)

• Keep ...personal agendas are not grounds for deletion. It is pretty obvious in reading the comments one user used this source to bash this mud, when this was prevented he then wished to remove the article. Childish behavior like this does not reflect well on Wikipedia.

````Xacoris

Show me one edit that was "bashing" the MUD unfairly. Assume good faith. Bjsiders 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith was assumed until you started posting every rumor you could find and then when revealed, you nominated it for deletion.69.6.167.240 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, show me one edit that was "bashing" the MUD. Bjsiders 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? ALL of the revisions you did for the uneeded controversy section were LIES or rumors based from those players denied from the game. (a list of which your name would be included) When you got called out on posting the lies to the article, you made a post that you were "withdrawing" from the project and nominated it for deletion.69.6.167.240 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Controversy" section was largely written by 24.107.0.250 (see this diff [1]), not by Bjsiders. Bjsider's contributions have been, IMO, valuable and informative. Regardless, the AfD has been made, so we should discuss the MUD's notability rather than the motives of the nominator. -SpuriousQ 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an example. Quote one of my edits that was a malicious lie that I knew full well wasn't true but posted anyway to "bash" the game. Bjsiders 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not know the information you are posting is truth beyond a smidgen of a doubt, you should not be adding to Wikipedia articles with it. The mention you made of the lack of use of in-game notes leads me to believe you have not kept up to date on the subject of this game. Lillathrin 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed quite wrong about the notes. I have indeed not kept up to date on the game. Nothing I've added to the article bears on current events in the game, however. Bjsiders 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepI will preface this vote by saying that I actually came to this website to see what Wikipedia had on Dark and Shattered Lands, because it popped up on my google search when I was looking for a different page. I'm apparently coming in to this at the end, and made an account specifically to place my vote. Take that as you will. Now, on to my voting reason. Once cannot assume in any way shape or form that the number of players at any given time confers notability. If one were to look at the MudConnector stats (http://www.mudconnect.com/index.html) one would see that 6 of the top 10 muds listed have less than DSL does at any given time, yet enough people enjoy the mud to vote repetitively to get it to that top 10. (The 6 being: SlothMUDIII (25-49), Federation II (25-49), Duris:Land of BloodLust (25-49), Shadows of Isildur (10-24), Mozart MUD (10-24) and Armageddon (25-49)) I will be the first to acknowledge, now that I've seen what is on the Wikipedia DSL page, that it should be updated to be more informative, rather than just an in-game timeline. Given the chance to edit it, I will do so. As for notability, I can assure you that any of the numerous couples who have met and gotten married due to this game, or facilitated by this game, would take offense that this game is being considered non-notable. Add in the college psychology course where the professor and several of his students played (some of which remain playing, a year and a half after the fact), and its notability grows. Is it World of Warcraft, breaking records for subscriptions and money earned? No, but having just come back from the annual DSL Convention, which 55-60 other players attended, I can assure you, it's far from non-notable.Lillathrin 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also noticed that about MUD connector, which is part of why I think traffic alone is not sufficient to merit notability. But tenure shouldn't be either. Some combination of the two might make sense. If we were to go by Alexa rank and look at other MUDs on the Top 10 from Mud Connector:

Bat Mud: 456,251

MUME: 2,177,875

SlothMud: 1,474,538

Medievia: 487,509

ZombieMUD: 747,024

Federation II: 316,951

Shadows of Isildur: 1,050,430

Armageddon: 3,174,400

MozartMud: No Data

Land of BloodLust: 5,661

The trimmed average of all these, not counting Mozart, is in the range of 700,000. It's notable that MozartMUD doesn't even registration. This puts DSL firmly out of the running based on Alexa rank, but Armageddon, for example, has an atrocious Alexa rank but few serious MUD'ers would argue that it's not a notable MUD. It also has a small player base. Further, should a new game with a big player base not qualify because it's new? I would suggest the following criteria for MUD notability.

If a MUD meets two of the four following criteria, it merits its own Wikipedia article.

1. Active user base numbering in the hundreds (that is, 100+)

2. Alexa ranking of 750,000 or lower

3. Meets notability standards of existing Wikipedia guidelines, such as WEB

4. Game has or had a tenure of at least 80 months.

This way, if a game existed forever but nobody ever played it, it doesn't qualify. If a game is short-lived but very popular, it might qualify, and if it lives long enough, it may qualify even if its player base declines. Now, we can fudge all these numbers, too. The Alexa one in particular I think could use some adjustment.

Further note that DSL would meet criteria #1 and #4 and would thus, under my own proposal, merits its own article.

Any thoughts? I also notice after the fact that Arm probably wouldn't qualify under this guideline either, so tweaking is clearly necessary.

Bjsiders 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can honestly say before reading all this dialogue, I had never heard of Alexa, and thus it took me a few minutes to figure out exactly what everyone was talking about! :) The most accurate way I've found to average numbers such as those (the Alexa rankings) is to throw out the high and the low, since they're so very much higher and lower, and add up and divide the ones that are left. (This is what we did in my Statistics for Psychology class.)That leaves you with an average of 958,654 which I think is a more representative Alexa figure. I would put an Alexa ranking of 1,000,000 as your cut off in that case, since that number seems more representative for MUDs these days. I do realize it would still cut off DSL in this case, but so be it, I'm talking about for future notability issues. I'm not sure why you went halfway through a year and went for 80 months, I'd even it out and go for 84 months. It's also kind of rough determining what meets those notability standards, since it at least partially appears to be a matter of opinion (hence this discussion!) I do think it's a very good idea to determine a set guideline for notability overall for MUD pages in Wikipedia.Lillathrin 03:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa rankings of greater than 100,000 are unreliable and really shouldn't be compared, because the sample sizes are too small. See Alexa's site. Ehheh 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree that there should be a set criteria for notability overall for MUD pages. That I don't contest. What I'm curious about is to why you are including Alexa ranking in it, when did you not previously say that it is not a reliable source to judge things by? Cdabc 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly it is reliable, just not for so small a data set. I'd suggest then that replace the "Alexa" requirement with something else. Or, we can simply evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Few other MUD articles should be as contentious as this one. Bjsiders 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is Alexa relevant? Doesn't it rank traffic statistics for users who have downloaded their toolbar? And how does web traffic dictate the over all use a telnet based game? The same goes for Google. DSL was live more than two full years before google even became a search engine.69.6.167.240 21:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point and purpose of now saying that it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis?? IF you are going to be doing that, then there is no reason to even try to set a standard and a guideline. The point of having a guideline is to avoid judging things on a case-by-case evaluation, it either is or it isn't. If there is extenuating circumstances, then it can come up for review. Simply saying now to evaluate on a case-by-case basis only allows for bias and regardless of what you do and do not say, no one is completely 100% unbiased about things unless they have never had any interaction with or knowledge of the particular topic at hand. People judge things based on their own personal opinion, thoughts and beliefs. If you are going to set a guideline, then these personal opinions can not come in to play at all. You need a solid guideline that does not allow for this. Cdabc 00:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Alexa was rejected as a basis for any evaluation for web content previously, not the least of which because it is not an unbiased, accurate, or reliable source, nevermind the fact that a mud isn't even a website in the first place. Alexa is a piece of spyware that quite a large number of people do not use, and you really end up only measuring how many people visit a particular website who happen to be using Alexa's toolbar. Don't even bring Alexa rankings into any discussion on "notability". --Keolah 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting here that at least one other genre of media on Wikipedia use Alexa ranking as one of several standards for notability, so it's already been established as appropriate for part of Wikipedia by the community of editors. There is (at least) one key distinction, however, and that is that the other genre (webcomics) is by definition measurable by web traffic. There is no reliable measure of MUD activity unless one wishes to trust the MUD to self-report its players accurately. I don't know of any games offhand that don't have accurate player reporting, but as somebody pointed out above, games that allow multiplaying can appear to have more players than they do. Further, if people know that to merit a Wikipedia article, one need only have X number of players, it's trivial for an unscrupulous MUD admin to conjure up enough logins to qualify. Hence, my contention that something beyond simple player count is necessary to establish notability on Wikipedia. Tenure is, I think, a strong measure as well, but there are long-tenured MUDs with small player bases (Armageddon comes to mind) that are notable. And there are long-tenured muds with small player bases that most certainly are not. Moosehead SLED was the development playform for a major release of the ROM code base, which is still in widespread use today, and it existed for well over ten years. Player base was in the 50's-60's at its height, and at one point it had over 100 logins. It eventually died off. Notable? As in, Wikipedia-notable? I really don't think so. Others might. So how do we determine which games merit an article? I think having a list of 4-5 criteria, and requiring that a game meet at least 2-3 of them to be considered worthy of its own article is a good idea. That kind of method allows for a variety of factors to constitute notability in a MUD/MUSH/MOO/whatever. So, back to ideas. I think tenure is clearly one, and so is population. Verifiable mention in a published work (newspaper, magazine, academic paper by a professor or as part of a dissertation, not some undergraduate student thesis in Psych 101) could go on the list. Any other ideas? Bjsiders 17:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of saying that is to suggest that it's another option to weigh against a standard. I don't like case-by-case all that much, but it's out there. Bjsiders 15:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after precident set by the GraalOnline AfD, which was endorsed at deletion review. Daniel.Bryant 06:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those that may not know, here is the discussion for the AFD on GraalOnline. Is the point you are making, that this game does not conform to WP:WEB, that both sides had major disagreements which could not be resolved for the greater good of the article, or a combination of both? Cufece 15:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.