Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clandestine (mud)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 - I note that most of the activity in favour of keeping this entry is from participants of Clandestine. The author of this article appears to equate his creation of the article with 'advertising'. - Richardcavell 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clandestine (mud)

edit

non-notable gaming group, advertisement Travelbird 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: Sorry if it looked like an advertisement. Still learning how to add a page to Wikipedia and only put that beginning info in to make sure that the page was created before I started scrounging around for information to put onto the page Blackrazer 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please look at Top MUD Sites, we have been consistently in the top 20 for incoming traffic since readvertising. --Blackrazer 01:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what the boundaries of notability are in this area. It seems to have garnered respect in the MUDing Community, which has several other text-based games on Wikipedia. It points to awards, rankings, various communities, and a large number of people who have played it. I wouldn't delete it, but I am simply unsure of what "notable" refers to. Searching the TopMudSites site ranks them 14th(at this moment) out of over 1,000 text-based online roleplaying MUDs. -D
  • Delete it. Non-notable. The 'awards' it points to are non-awards that take the agreement of about five random users to attain. There's no competition for them. I've been in MUDing since long before this MUD opened and the only people I've ever heard talk about it are the administrators. Keep in mind that very few MUDs actually participate in those silly rankings, and that virtually no users are required to reach the top 20. OneThousandYears 05:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, given that the people writing/submitting this article appear to admit that this is just an advertisement (see the comments above from Blackrazer), saying that their advertising personnel just got involved again, why is there even a question here? - OneThousandYears.
    • Actually, I pointed out that we have advertising again because that's going to provide notability in the future because we will have more people curious about what aspects of the game we have and the more information they have access to, the easier it is for them to decide what they want to do/have access to help and tips. We have already gotten at good amount of new people in the past few weeks and they all had to ask what we offered. Giving people a way to research things about things mud is why I made this in the first place. The only reason the other people from the mud know about this is because I linked them to it to ask their opinions about what I was writing. I'm sure the "notability" of this entry wouldn't have been called into question if I knew more about writing entries in Wikipedia and the first entry wasn't three lines long. But I didn't know anything when I started, and I have worked feverously to make it a more respectable post. If you still feel that it needs to be deleted after looking at it now, then please by all means delete it. But I started this with the full intentions of expanding it to be a very descriptive entry about what Cland is and has that other muds may or may not have. -- Blackrazer
  • To note is that "Blackrazer" certainly is not the advertising staff of Clandestine. He's not a member of the staff at all. Merely a player of several years; I know this as a member of the staff. I can also say, as a member of the staff, that you can log onto Clandestine and see for yourself that we have a larger number of players. And if The MUD Connector(who granted us one of our awards) is not an authority on the MUD-world, who is? Also to note is that many of the other MUDs that rank in the Top 20 on TopMudSites(the largest website on the net for MUD advertising and traffic) have wikipedia entries - and some of them are smaller and younger than Clandestine(Armageddon MUD for instance). As a staff member, I have no issue with the player's entry here. It also does seem to approach the game in a positive, yet objective way. I would not call it advertising, and I believe that it gives an accurate portrayal of a very popular MUD. Before you "delete" it, I'd challenge you to look up our rankings and log onto Clandestine to see the statistics for yourself. Non-notable? Beyond all of the easy-to-find information on the game, many pieces of its code were released as open-source and are used on other MUDs(especially its mini-game programs), directly influencing the community. I'd be very disappointed in any inability to recognize a strongly acclaimed and popular online game as a notable entry. I also strongly question the level of expertise "OneThousandYears" claims to have of the community if he states that you do not need a significant number of players to maintain a high rank on TopMudSites. Either that, or his intentions may not be pure. -- Donathin
  • Delete Advertising, non-notable. Several listings including MUD Connector produce awards which are or were granted regularly to games of many sizes and rankings, free and pay. [1] Windflare 07:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A simple check of the other MUDs which received the same award from MUD Connector that we did will show you that the ones that have survived the years are the most popular free-to-play MUDs on the Internet. BatMUD, Carrion Fields, Clandestine, and Wheels of Time MUD are all examples of this. I am rewriting our player's entry to fit more into the WIKI mold, and remove the advertising qualities of it. Once this is done, I sincerely hope that this silliness can end - Clandestine has been a great contributor, very popular game, and a source of originality in a gaming world that is stagnant with mediocrity. I simply cannot fathom researched opinioners being able to call Clandestine not notable. The Advertising issue will be taken care of shortly. Thanks. -- Donathin
  • DO NOT DELETE In my eyes this entry is not unnotable but I am no Wikipedia Expert.. if this Entry IS unnotable why are the existing Entries of other muds like BatMud and Carrion Fields in Wikipedia not ? If the "Advertisment" character of this Entry is removed then this ENTRY should defently stay in.. after all Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. So if someone stumbles across the Word Clandestine he should be able to look it up in the World´s best Online Encyclopedia. Thank you. -Ascaris
  • Comment: I do not know who reverted our stuff but I was asked to stop putting information into the wiki. Please let the person who is changing it, continue to change it. Blackrazer 08:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, instead of just saying Delete (which makes it very frustrating to figure out what's wrong when someone would really like to have a wiki added) some comments about how to fix up the entry would be appreciated. One person said it was advertising, I see now how it could have been viewed as advertising but constructive criticism would have solved that a lot easier and probably kept me from stressing out over what I was doing wrong. This is suppose to be a discussion of why it's to be deleted. One-liners do not cut it whatsoever. Reasoning is sorely needed when you comment. --Blackrazer 08:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Substantiation on comments regarding notability can be found in Wikipedia's NOTES section of the Notability page, pertaining to self-promotion and product placement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB - Please retain objectivity in comments and responses. Windflare
  • Both myself and Donathin have read the section on notability multiple times. It says that notability is based on being publicized in some manner and makes like a very quick statement about advertising. The problem is that you all were saying we are non-notable which is why we were trying to find a way to say "Hey, we're known in the MUDing community". Instead it seems you guys were saying "You're trying to advertise your MUD" by saying we were non-notable. Which I can see your point in that matter. However, instead of saying that and trying to give us an idea of what we could have done to prove otherwise, you guys let the matter drop. "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." We meet criterion three in the WP:WEB as TMS is well known within the MUDing community and independent of the creators of our MUD and is distributing our web content to others. Also as Donathin has already shown, the wiki entry has been changed to be even more of an encyclopedia entry. So I urge you to not delete our entry. --Blackrazer 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my recent changes to the Wiki entry should satisfy any complaints of advertising or no-notability. If they do not, please specify for me what we are still doing wrong, as I have used several other MUD wikipedias as a guideline in our newly designed entry. I thank Blackrazer for his help in this, and shake my virtual fist at some of the rest of you for your lack of specificity. -- Donathin
  • Do Not Delete - As has been noted other MUDs with smaller populations and a shorter period of existence have already met the burden required to be classified as notable. If they remain on Wiki so should Clandestine. JaquesDeMolay 12:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If a MUD like Carrion Fields, which has done nothing notable, is listed here, I'd suggest deleting it as well. Batmud, on the other hand, is many times the size of Clandestine, much older, and the biggest LP MUD in the world. Armaggedon is notable for its respected and hardcore roleplaying. Listing on TMS is meaningless as that's just a banner exchange that anyone can participate in and doesn't constitute any sort of 'distribution decision' made by TMS. MUDs with 1 player are listed on there. Incidentally, it may be worth pointing out again that it's pretty clear that Donathin and Blackrazer are doing this to advertise. They even started a discussion over on Topmudsites (TMS) in the 'Advertising for Players' section about this Wikipedia article (http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=44a17312314cffff;act=ST;f=12;t=1051;st=20) OneThousandYears 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I have no affiliation with TMS. I am merely a player of 6 years of Clandestine. That's it. Also, TMS has been very helpful in trying to make our entry less "advertisee" from just looking at that forum post and I thank them for that now. And just to point out. I don't see how you found that post to begin with, it's pretty obscure where Donathin placed it. So your affiliation with TMS must be pretty high if you found it. Which proves my point that it's a well-known place in the MUDing community since you advocate that you know a great deal about MUDing in general. --Blackrazer 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There aren't really any notability criteria laid down for MUDs, but Clandestine was (and maybe still is) very popular. Most MUDs peak and die within a year, and that only if they are lucky. Clandestine has been around for almost 10 years, which is a LONG time for a MUD. I'm personally surprised that it's still up, and that Sebek is still involved. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Blackrazer has no affiliation with TMS or the advertising element of Clandestine. I only became involved because I was asked to help make the entry more encyclopediac. The thread on TMS was meant to get feedback from other respected leaders in the community on (first) our entry, and (second) this issue. I would also again push that Clandestine's the originator of several coding elements(particularly minigames) that have been copied and have become mainstays on many other DIKU-derived MUDs. Beyond just 9 years of service, a large playerbase, recognition in the text-mmorpg world through awards and awareness - Clandestine has actually affected other MUDs. The poster's claim that Armageddon is notable because of the quality of its roleplay is the sole opinion of the poster (OneThousandYears), who appears to be a member of the TMS community with some sort of bent towards making sure Clandestine does not get the entry that it certainly deserves. If someone else, other than this poster, is able to tell me that Clandestine is still(after this) not-notable - I would like to hear the specific reasoning and explanation. Thanks. -- Donathin
  • STRONG KEEP. I agree any mud that can withstand and still boast a dedicated playerbase after almost 10 years of playing DESERVES their right to host their name on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.197.108 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 June 2006
Advertisement It's my belief the Advertisement is one of inexperience in writing in Wikipedia, rather then trying slight-of-hand tactics. I must go on to write, that if said advertisement is harmful, then help them out with some POSITIVE FEEDBACK, just saying it's advertisement and not specifying how it does advertising, or where it does advertise is a negative post
When I see the willingness of Donathin and Blackrazer saying they want to comply and fix whatever they can to make this a better Wikipedia page, and then those negative posts from other people without constructive criticism show me an almost spiteful approach from the other participants in this review. In fact, I'm wondering if the only reason Onethousandyears is speaking out, is because of his biased nature, he claims to be a long time MUDder and an advent suscriber to groups of people of the same game type, what shows he doesn't have his own he wants promoted or being plain envious? Is this a childish dispute on his part?
MUDs are a part of our history in gaming, If E.T. the game can have it's page, even though it's one of THE WORST games out their, so should Clandestine, for better or worse.
-J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.197.108 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 June 2006
  • Strong Keep. I'd just like to point out that since I redid the wikipedia entry about 30 hours ago, commentators have expressed notability with explained reasoning(the earlier comments were in response to a completely different entry which has been fixed to comply to wiki standards). This is with the exception of OneThousandYears, whose P.O.V. seems to have been explained. If we've moved past the notability argument, please let me know if there is anything that can immediately be done to improve this wikipedia entry. Thank you. I didn't want to throw around the words "strong keep" until I was sure that people from the wiki-community felt the same way about the notability of Clandestine that I do. -- Donathin
  • This new article is much better. Very detailed, fixed some of the tone problems. I applaud the effort. I hope you'll post it somewhere it belongs, but I still can't help but think that this doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, theorizing as to reasons why users may be expressing sentiments in favor of deletion does not strengthen your case and, in my opinion, borders on attack. Please read WP:AGF. GassyGuy 18:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not meant to be an attack. I just understand the frustration of wanting to meet wiki-standards(which many people seem to think we meet the notability requirements), and only having received very unhelpful, nearly insulting responses in return. It made me feel the need to open whomever may read this debate/consensus' eyes to the fact that there could possibly be unsavorable outside motives. Other posters(of whom I have no idea of their identity at all) seem to agree. At any rate - what do you think makes this article not meet the guidelines for inclusion? As has been said before by someone else, the notability requirements for MUDs on Wikipedia is very grey area - and Clandestine has surpassed the age and popularity of over 99% of other MUDs, including other MUDs that were given Wikipedia entries. I'm just not sure what you think we're lacking, specifically, though I really do appreciate your cordial approach, GG. -- Donathin
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clandestine_(mud)&oldid=1146632251"