- 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 of the debate was Delete. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 01:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As fascinating as the said article is, it's nothing, but fan fiction not to mention not very well know fan fiction considering that if you google AlphaMuck you get about four entries all started by the user who created the AlphaEarth article so I say Delete Timon 02:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable Muck community. -- Saikiri~ 02:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - they talk about how writing to their livejournal community is an important patr of the game, so I checked out the size of the community. 12 members. So if the community where they organise everything has 12 members, then I can't see them having any hope of being deemed notable. Sorry. They should cut and paste the Wikipedia article and put it in to the LiveJournal community where it would be useful. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of our members are also members of the livejournal community. -RannXXV 20:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Timon. — JIP | Talk 09:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Delete, because some people are being jerks and declaring a community as "non notable", whatever that means, simply due to the fact that they don't play there and won't be invited. This vote is an act of vandalism. - RannXXV 20:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Delete, Private mucks are fun! No reason to delete a page over it just cause you can't get your rocks off on it. Dhcalva 21:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User only has 2 edits, all on this page: User:RannXXV attempted to remove this notice 1 times -Original edit and revert was placed by User:Saikiri, not an admin
- Not Delete There's no reason to delete it. Besides, it was interesting. So let other people see it. The opinions of these people matter as much as yours, fyi. PoliceMe 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User only has 4 edits, all on this page: User:RannXXV attempted to remove this notice 1 times -Original edit and revert was placed by User:Saikiri, not an admin
- Comment While there is no harm in letting the article stay as is, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you can show that this MUCK community has importance beyond a close circle of friends and associates, using verifiable third-party sources, then that would be a claim to notability and you would probably have a stronger case for keeping it. -- Saikiri~ 22:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply By that logic, then, all MU* communities aren't notable beyond their own sphere of users. Big or small. I believe their reasons for being allowed to post information are no more or less valid than RannXXV's own. PoliceMe 23:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority aren't, just like the vast majority of websites do not have their own Wikipedia article. But a few are. Achaea (MUD) has recieved numerous awards and accolades, and is unique for the great amount of control that player organizations have, which sets it apart from the rest. Tapestries MUCK is the largest furry fandom online game and is notable for that. Granted, most of the MU* that have articles on Wikipedia right now are not this notable, but a MUCK with only 4 Google hits is a little difficult to justify. -- Saikiri~ 00:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's a very good point. My understanding is that in order for a MU* community to have its own article it is required to influence society beyond its core group of users. Whilst I haven't gone through the list of MU* to see if that is true for all of them, I believe that the majority have made some claim of notoriety. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars MUSH. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply And who exactly determines what's notable or has an influence on society? That's almost entirely a matter of opinion. I see that you've both made contributions or even created articles about exceptionally little-known stories, books, and other such things. Should I go and suggest these for deletion simply on the fact that I consider them to not be notable, or lacking impact on society at large? -RannXXV 01:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Published books(Okay, apparently I was mistaken about this - Authors are notable if they have published a book, books that are not well known should be included under the author's entry) and video games are generally notable as long as they are not self-published per WP:FICT. The Schrödinger equation is notable because it is an important part of quantum mechanics. So notability is not wholly based on opinion, even if it cannot be precisely measured. And while notability can be contested in many cases, a site with just 4 Google hits and no mentions on third-party sources is simply too far below the radar to qualify. And since the discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I guess that's all I have to say for now. -- Saikiri~ 03:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]- When since did Google become the arbiter for whether something is noteworthy or not? It's a search engine, not a device of divine definition on what's important or isn't. I think you just have too much time on your hands and some kind of issue with mucks or fandom. -RannXXV 04:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I promised to quit, but you have a good point there, so there is still room for further discussion. What other verifiable, third-party sources can you recommend to establish importance? Any mentions in gaming magazines? Reputable publications? Newspapers? Journals? (Right now the hard data that I have is 4 Google hits and 12 members on your LiveJournal, which isn't really much to go by...) Anyway, I don't have anything against MU* in general, only against articles (on any subject) which are of no importance except to their creator and a close circle of associates - non-notable. -- Saikiri~ 05:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, let's take a look at your latest definition of what is and isn't notable. By that, about half of the webcomics on the list of webcomics should be deleted, since they haven't appeared in any publications, have no livejournal communities at all, and you have no knowledge of their readership, and it could thus be assumed to be only a "close circle of associates" reading it. In fact, any game, book, or publication without a large web presence and vocal userbase could by these criterias be assumed to be "non-notable" by assuming it is only produced for and enjoyed by a small number of people. You have absolutely no idea of the number of players we have, how many have been invited, and so on. Your only contention that it is for a small number, IE, "a close circle of associates", is purely your assumption. Whether it is so or not is not the point... we could have several hundred users and only a dozen who care to use the LJ, or we could have thirteen, but for you to assume the latter because it suits your ends shows that your take on this does have some manner of bias. -RannXXV 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you verify that statement that you have a large number of players? WP:V -- Saikiri~ 05:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I made no such statement. I stated that we could. Information about players is private, including the number of them. Would you care to respond to what I said about it being solely your assumption that we had a small number and that you are thus biased, or not? -RannXXV 05:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I make no assumptions - only quote figures that are publicly known. -- Saikiri~ 05:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not going to respond to that or any other point above, then. I will also note you have not responded to the notation below about the meaning of the guideline on vanity pages you quoted. -RannXXV 06:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you recommend I do? Your MUCK has not been featured in any reputable media that I know of, all I have are the Google results and LiveJournal entries to go by. If I have made an assumption, then I think it was a reasonable one. You can prove me wrong at anytime, of course. This is the problem with non-notable subjects - they are so obscure and invisible to the public eye that there is no way of getting any verifiable, objective facts about them. -- Saikiri~ 06:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not going to respond to that or any other point above, then. I will also note you have not responded to the notation below about the meaning of the guideline on vanity pages you quoted. -RannXXV 06:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I make no assumptions - only quote figures that are publicly known. -- Saikiri~ 05:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I made no such statement. I stated that we could. Information about players is private, including the number of them. Would you care to respond to what I said about it being solely your assumption that we had a small number and that you are thus biased, or not? -RannXXV 05:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Delete, In the FAQs, the purpose of Wikipedia is described as “creating a new kind of Encyclopedia that is comprehensive and free for anyone to consult.” So if the underlying concept beneath this site is indeed freedom of information, it shouldn’t matter how accessible or obscure that information is -- it’s there for the having and enjoying even if you don’t use it. That’s what freedom of information –is-. As far as being notable goes, I say that's a matter of pure opinion. After all, your average person probably won’t think Schrodinger’s wave theory is notable, but the Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry on it anyway.CodexArcana 01:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User only has 1 edit, which is on this page: User:RannXXV attempted to remove this notice 1 times -Original edit and revert was placed by User:Saikiri, not an admin
- Keep. MU*'s may not be as notable as more well-known subjects, there's no inherent harm in allowing articles as long as they're well-written. It's certainly no worse than having individual pages for episodes of various series such as we already have, and it's certainly better than the dozens of Spongebob Squarepants episodes documented on the site. At worst you have a situation where only those who know about it will read the article, at best you have people run across it, find it interesting, and try and join. Neither end of the spectrum is world-shattering, so let things ride for now and see what happens. Nezu Chiza 02:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I cite Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Saikiri~ 03:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, none of the criteria under that particular topic actually prohibits anything like a page about a MU*. Could you perhaps point out the part that pertains to this? Also, I draw your attention to Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia Nezu Chiza 04:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct and I apologize. (Okay, that's it, no more quoting policy pages from memory.) What I really wanted to cite was WP:VAIN, especially WP:VAIN#Vain vs: encyclopedic. I again repeat that I am not against all articles on MU*, only this one. -- Saikiri~ 05:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article you cite here seems to refer almost specifically to pages about individual people. It could also be interpreted to be about individual projects of people, it's true. However, since the MU* is a shared environment, and various members of it have already expressed a desire at some point to add to it, it is likely to become more and more rounded as players add on various things about it, rather than it being simply a puff-piece about one individual's works, which seems to be what the vanity page refers to. It also refers to advertising, which hardly applies here, since it's a private mu* and thus advertising would somewhat defeat the purpose. -RannXXV 05:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The community apparently has only twelve members and so far the majority of entries(3/4) in the front page there have been made by the sole owner and maintainer of the community definitely makes it a vanity in my opinion.Timon 06:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for repeating yourself and what has already been stated. Is there any point to this or is it another bout of attacks for no reason I can fathom? -RannXXV 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. You have a point. So I concede that this article is not vanity, but is still non-notable. As to your point about webcomics, the notability guidelines for them are at WP:WEB#Webcomics -- 06:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- The community apparently has only twelve members and so far the majority of entries(3/4) in the front page there have been made by the sole owner and maintainer of the community definitely makes it a vanity in my opinion.Timon 06:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article you cite here seems to refer almost specifically to pages about individual people. It could also be interpreted to be about individual projects of people, it's true. However, since the MU* is a shared environment, and various members of it have already expressed a desire at some point to add to it, it is likely to become more and more rounded as players add on various things about it, rather than it being simply a puff-piece about one individual's works, which seems to be what the vanity page refers to. It also refers to advertising, which hardly applies here, since it's a private mu* and thus advertising would somewhat defeat the purpose. -RannXXV 05:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct and I apologize. (Okay, that's it, no more quoting policy pages from memory.) What I really wanted to cite was WP:VAIN, especially WP:VAIN#Vain vs: encyclopedic. I again repeat that I am not against all articles on MU*, only this one. -- Saikiri~ 05:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, none of the criteria under that particular topic actually prohibits anything like a page about a MU*. Could you perhaps point out the part that pertains to this? Also, I draw your attention to Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia Nezu Chiza 04:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I cite Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Saikiri~ 03:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like a vanity page for a specific MUCK that really doesn't belong here. Perhaps the user who created it should establish a website about this subject. --Thephotoman 00:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be appreciated if, in the future, the user Saikiri would cease to try and add edits to this page which are not signed by them, in an attempt to make it look as if an admin were in some way responsible for them, especially when the number of edits could be looked up by anyone and it is hardly Saikiri's responsibility to note them, other than as an exercise in some sort of pathetic vendetta, in an attempt to paint other users and players of the muck in question who would like to retain the page as "meatpuppets", in the user's own words. -RannXXV 20:43, 6 December 2005 (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.