Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOS TrekMUSE (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:WEB despite WP:ILIKEIT. ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOS TrekMUSE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Independent sources? None. Number of players? Not stated. Innovation? None stated. Non-trivial external coverage? None listed, and with only about 700 Ghits including Wikipedia and mirrors I don't see much evidence that any exist. So: this loks on the face of it like yet another generic online game, just like all the other ones we delete for the same reasons. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not another damn Star Trek page. At least the other ones stated their sources and references. This page is just pointless. I vote for deletion. Debaser23 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It was Mud of the Month at mudconnector in March 1999, not that that means much, and they did an interview with the admins thereof. The earlier deletion debate asserted they'd interviewed Shatner and Nimoy. There are transcripts here. I don't see that this in itself has any bearing on its relevance. There is no mention of the MUSE at the official Trek website that I can see. Coming from the mud end, This thing refers in passing to the TNG TrekMuse, which is now defunct, and Richard A. Bartle rates it worth a mention. Morwen - Talk 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Never knew something like this existed and its pretty fascinating. Would like to see more. -Husnock 14:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure you would, but does it meet WP:WEB, has it been the subject of multiple non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, or are you claiming that WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT trump WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS? Guy (Help!) 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously your referencing a non-existant policy and saying that "you are sure" I would find it interesting is sarcastic and bordering WP:CIV. I was simply voting. Why do you have to bash the vote and make a derogatory remark about my motives? Do you have something against me that I can't vote here without comments like that? -Husnock 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ...or you could answer the question. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not claiming any policy of Wikipedia "trumps" any other. Please refrain from sarcastic, judgemental, belittling remarks. Is there something going on here that you would like to share? -Husnock 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• AFD is not a vote. You must provide a rationale for your 'delete' or 'keep' for it to be taken into account by the closing admin. Your statement that you find this interesting is not a rationale. Morwen - Talk 07:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that's true (and it is still in some ways a vote), the comments above bite with sarcasim. The users should simple have phrased it in such a way where he asked for clarification of my reasons instead of saying I was "trumping" policy and saying he knew what I was thinking. -Husnock 08:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources for this. Goose eggs for Google News and Books and plain-vanilla Google only returns 416 unique hits, which doesn't bode well for something that exists only online. JChap2007 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, JChap2007; borderline {{db-web}} stuff. As for recording every last MUD, WP:WING, or the Internet Archive either. Perhaps if Husnock read WP:ILIKEIT, his keep votes wouldn't need glossing by editors who have. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment TrekMUSE claims to have hosted two interviews with members of the original series' cast (Shatner and Nimoy on both occasions, with DeForest Kelley joining them on one). If this is true, it's clearly notable; not many online games draw that kind of attention from their inspirations. The problem is sourcing. The only source I can find that seems likely, aside from directly contacting an actor's publicist or something along those lines, is Net Trek: Your Guide to Trek Life in Cyberspace by Kelly Maloni, Ben Greenman, Kristin Miller, and Jeff Hearn. Published in '95, which is when those interviews occurred, by Random House. I am ill and unlikely to get to a library to check before this AfD expires, but the ISBN is 0679761861, if anyone would like to try. Shimeru 04:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that interviewing Shatner and Nimoy would make this thing automatically noteworthy. Based on the lack of secondary-source evidence I was able to find (it got some trivial mentions in sources about muds, that's about it), I would tend to delete. I would not be opposed to recreating the article if the Net Trek book provides a secondary source. Morwen - Talk 07:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that this appears to be a pro-forma comment which has been added to several different deletion debates within the space of a few minutes. Morwen - Talk 08:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Such comments, and obvious lack of analysis, are less than helpful. -- Satori Son 06:48, 12 December 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.