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. At least two non-trivial mentions in independent sources are established in the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JediMUD[edit]

JediMUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I declined a speedy on this article as notability of sorts is asserted however I am not sure that this "multi user dungeon" comes even close to passing WP:WEB so am bringing it to the community to decide. reliable sources are in short supply and it produces zero ghits in the news archives. nancy ^talk 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete interesting history, but nothing in the article asserts any outside notability. The "notability" references at the end only suggest that it's popular among MUDders which does not equal widespread notoriety. JuJube (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How popular would a MUD have to be (amongst MUDders) to attain "notability"? Would a "# of active players" type of references satisfy this? Or are we going by external mentions of the MUD giving it notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB requires coverage in multiple independent non-trivial sources as does the more general notability guidelines. Notability is all about being recognised in the wider world, so to answer your question, it would be the "external mentions" which will give JediMUD its notability. nancy ^talk 07:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• From the work that has been done to this article (although not pretty), I feel that the bar has now been passed for providing "multiple independent non-trivial sources". I would also like to point out that this article was nominated for a Speedy 1 minute after creation. This article should not have even made it to AFD IMO, even if it was procedural to do so. At what point of the Revision history was "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion" enacted? Although handy TW can make things to easy, but thats a whole different argument... Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per my above statement. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What can I really say? Here, in a day of the MMORPG, we have an ugly duckling. Of course, in its day it was beautiful but today, it's a relic. It's 16 years old and because of it predating the World Wide Web, much of its "notable" mentions have been lost to the day of the newsgroup. On the other hand, some handy Googling will still find hundreds of mentions of this game and how it touched peoples lives. It can be found in foreign news (such as "The Internet in Egypt"), a published novel, a resume, numerous forums and blogs, several gaming web sites and it was even mentioned on some site in Serbian. In addition to those, I also found an article on the WoW forums where WoW was accused of "borrowing" some game functionality specifically from JediMUD. Yet, there's debate about the significance and notability of this game? This is a place where people can experience, first-hand, what their MMORPGs looked like before graphics, broadband or even anything over a 486 computer? The fact that it's still running after 16 years is noteworthy. The fact that thousands of people from every continent have played there is noteworthy. The fact that its still talked about even on the likes of the WoW forum is noteworthy. Dutch B (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Users Exit2DOS2000 and Dutch B. There is a sort of systemic bias when it comes to this sort of subject, since many of such sources as there were, are now lost, as Dutch B points out. It seems clear that this is a notable specimen of the type, and that the sourcing is as good as can be reasonably be expected. I second Exit2DOS2000's criticism of the excessive rush to speedy this article - but thumbs up to nominator for resisting the pressure to make an instant zap.HeartofaDog (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2008 (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.