1428:, but significant coverage is definitely dubious. Internet After Hours does not provide significant coverage, as evidenced by the prose. Sources 4 and 5 are identical in their content, and again only lists the MUD. If it went further on it being one of the oldest I'd say it could help establish notability, but it's just a list, and the reliability of the source is questionable anyway. The remaining source is a FAQ, which most definitely wouldn't provide significant coverage. Print sources may exist, and I would recommend those wanting to keep the article visit their local library and bookstores to find significant coverage in books, which may be more likely. Should the article be deleted, those sources would be very useful should someone choose to
576:- It's not rolling in coverage or anything, but the public contribution documented in the r.g.m.d FAQ is good, and between the other three items I think keeping it is justified. I don't know how far Jlambert's logic can be taken, since any nonsense can generate buzz within its own enthusiast community (not that I'm not sure whether having articles on ridiculously niche topics is worse than using "was considered worthy of notice by mass media businesses that exist to line the pockets of specific rich white men" as the standard), but the Historical DikuMUD list at least was obviously conscientiously curated. —
1369:, but archive.org has never heard of it. I also don't see any particular indication that dl3e.com is "official" in any regard; looks more like a fansite to me. TMS and TMC rankings are fundamentally affiliate internet traffic metrics, aren't reliable and don't have any encyclopedic value; they shouldn't even be included in articles, much less used for notability determinations. Being a featured MUD in zMUD is a paid advertising placement, so not helpful. I don't think the argument that notability is not temporary is helpful, because in order for it to be relevant, the topic would have to have
1351:. It's a shame we can't find more published references, but it's difficult with something this old and in a genre that is dying out so is not featured in modern publications that are readily available online. I have a vague memory of seeing Arctic discussed in a 1990s gaming publication, but I have no clue as to which one or when, so that doesn't help. I did note that in recent years Arctic was one of the 10 "featured" MUDs in Zuggsoft's zMUD client. Not sure whether that is significant or not. Cheers,
1010:
there's no reason to suspect any chicanery in any of this, and it's not like this is some kind of crank assertion that we must have
Authority From On High to call upon in order to let it in the door. Further, I assert that this fact is a meaningful indicator toward notability; I personally think that that plus the three passing mentions plus the longevity factor add up to enough notability to work with. If not, whatever, I'm just sick of the cooties arguments. —
1343:
Arctic had a short paragraph written about it on the official
Dragonlance Nexus (which sadly seems to be a broken link now) and was referenced on the official Dragonlance movie site, which back in those days was together sufficient evidence of notability for the admin that deleted the original version to allow me to recreate it. As for now...it's a tricky one. The piece on the Nexus is gone and Arctic's rankings have changed. However as
1389:
dl3e has now moved to another domain (sadly they also re-did the site when they moved - I can't find that link even on the new site) and dl3e is now just an unofficial fansite. Nonetheless I agree that we are still rather thin on decent coverage. Yeah, that 1990s mag is bugging me something chronic. Shame your Net Games 2 find didn't have more info in it - got me excited for a moment! Well done on the find anyway though. Cheers
2020:
73:
1205:
which it does seem like to me, considering the entire thing as an Arctic MUD contribution to the public. But if that's not really justified, then we're left with four trivial references and perhaps a vague idea of longevity meaning something, which doesn't add up to notability to my way of thinking. Sounds like you don't take the FAQ content for substantial coverage of the topic? —
1120:. AFD's are for discussing the deletion of the article at hand, and repeatedly digressing to rant about RS policy is disruptive. Personally I'd say your chance of getting Knowledge (XXG) to consider usenet a relible source despite years of precedent to the contrary is about on par with my chance of perishing in a tragic Godzilla attack on the moon, but you can try if you want to.
1102:
down from on high, it develops organically from the bottom up. So what we decide here may potentially one day become an element of policy, but pushing me off to try to change policy centrally as if that's how it worked is, um, incorrect. Welcome to
Knowledge (XXG), please enjoy your stay and return the seat back to its fully upright and locked position. —
1888:
Notable as one of the longest-running DikuMUDs, and for its contribution to the DikuMUD codebase. A little slim on sources, but it is at least mentioned in print. Muds predate the WWW, and magazines prefer printing screenshots of graphics rather than text, so it can be difficult to find old sources
1814:
is there to prevent. And while these "tiny mentions" have to be added up in order to amount to anything, I still contend that the r.g.m.d FAQ's documentation of Arctic MUD's code contribution amounts to non-trivial coverage, and nobody has addressed this contention other than by talking around it in
1550:
which apparently contains the snippet "Various design approaches have been developed to provide virtual world designers with a set of design principles and parameters Figure 1. An example of words used to describe a virtual world (ArcticMUD http:/lwww.arctic.orgl Last ...", but the preview refuses to
1388:
Things have changed in the intervening period. dl3e.com used to be the URL of the
Dragonlance Nexus which I believe was set up and run in association with many of the DL authors and endorsed by WotC. It was the place to turn for official news on upcoming publications and so on. However, what was once
1342:
from article creator. I created this a number of years ago as a newish editor and didn't include any indicators of notability. It was deleted. At the time I believe Arctic MUD was ranked in the top 10 MUDs by notable MUD site The MUD Connector and also Top MUD Sites (which both actively vet entries).
1255:
while it appears to be one to me; I note your bald assertion of unwarranted behavior did not or could not provide an alternate explanation for an experienced
Wikipedian sending someone with an opposing viewpoint in a debate on what he or she, in order to have the experience he or she has claimed, has
1101:
Actually, the place to change notability policy is in individual AfDs like this one, since policy is a codification of consensus and this is where consensus on notability is worked out one article at a time. Policy is not decided legalistically and legislatively at a central location and then pushed
1693:
Yeah, that makes sense as far as that goes. I wouldn't argue that it'd ever make sense to treat Usenet posts in general as reliable or as signifying anything for notability purposes; what I'm saying is that a reasonable, well-curated FAQ, especially one that predates
Knowledge (XXG)'s existence, is
1189:
Perhaps this argument is unnecessary - let's clarify what the usenet posts say. The DikuMUD List is exactly that. It just tells us Artic's year and location. The FAQ, as far as I can tell, mentions Arctic once with regards the authors. Isn't this information in the two book sources anway? (Maybe I'm
924:
Although appears there is no notable out-of-internet preferences, would prefer to keep it. It is, as listed in references, one of those few remaining active DikuMUDs (for some 18 years so far). If kept for this, might need some edits to emphasis it's history and why it is among those active DikuMUDs
639:
Directory listings don't offer much - my local fish & chip shop is in a business directory (and no doubt gets "hundreds of visitors a week" which is a common kind of claim of notability for online games) but there's no way it would be included in an encyclopedia. If the concensus is that this is
1204:
Well, the book sources don't include any dating information, so AFAIK that's only sourced from the
Historical DikuMUD List, but otherwise that's accurate. I have been interpreting the FAQ content (the discussion of the patch and the patch itself) as amounting to non-trivial coverage of Arctic MUD,
1009:
about whether the evidence is admissible since it's tainted by Usenet cooties: the fact is that Arctic MUD developers publicly contributed a popular and useful socket code patch that corrected a common problem in DikuMUDs, anybody can check this by looking at the rec.games.mud.diku FAQ on faqs.org,
546:
I completely disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines as their purpose is to prevent controversial theories being promoted by crank authors. The article was regularly published publicly on Usenet for 9 continuous years by a well-respected member of the mud community (not affiliated with
1906:
ArticMUD has had mentions in print media in the hey-day of MUDs and at the dawn of the internet. It is extremely well-known in its own genre, and the article on it is not inaccurate. This would be like removing a once well-known fad simply because it isn't currently popular anymore. We have seem
1850:
Just because it isn't in the New York Times or talked about on MSNBC doesn't mean that it isn't important. There's an awful lot of literal crud here on this site that you'd be hard pressed to find even a single person today knows about that should have been deleted years ago. Yet once again you're
1174:
Ah. I was trying to AGF by interpreting your advice as based on ignorance or confusion. If that's your background, then it's hard to see a recommendation that I run off and try to change policy centrally and top-down as other than willfully disingenuous, sending me off on a snipe hunt. Cute. I
659:
speaks of "Usenet typically only a reliable source with respect to specific FAQs ". I don't know what "specific" FAQs means, since no list is in evidence; perhaps we're supposed to simply be evaluating whether a given FAQ is patent nonsense or what. I don't think there's anything wrong with the
1694:
a "big enough deal" that coverage in it should contribute to notability. This implies some assignment of reliability, though I would imagine no more than that given a newspaper article, i.e. if the FAQ states that the atomic number of oxygen is 7, we may safely disregard that as a simple error. —
1637:
I don't think that's really true. It seems to me that any editor may argue here that they believe a given reference should be considered as contributing to or establishing notability irrespective of externalities, and if they present a coherent argument as to why that should be the case then the
1288:
Insulting an editor who is only helping you by directing you to the correct venue for your request is an attack, certainly. You were clealy informed that the chances of such a policy change being accepted by the community is virtually impossible. There was no cause to attack the editor trying to
2135:
I applaud the offsite discussion for being (mostly) civil, but it has to be said that the fact that those closest to the subject have been asked for sources and haven't found any, and that further advances the now-obvious conclusion that there just plain aren't any suitable sources to be found.
1775:
That's great, except your common or garden variety Usenet FAQ has little resemblance to the sort of publications being discussed there. FAQs, just by their nature, were subject to ongoing review and criticism by the maintainer or maintainers' peers, and were generally evolving and cumulatively
1144:
When I say "hey, a factor in the notability of this topic is this thing that happened" and you say "oh, you can't say that because of Usenet cooties", commentary on the validity of the Usenet cooties argument is not a digression. Has anyone even noticed that the sources for these documents are
616:
There's some language in guideline docs supporting using FAQs, as opposed to random posts, isn't there? And the
Historical DikuMUD List is published on the original DikuMUD team's official site, for whatever that's worth. The book-published stuff is nothing much; as I mentioned in my comment,
1907:
how easy it is for some people to try to whittle away at each single source until somehow, every source available is either not notable itself, a conflict of interest, or simply "unacceptable". This kind of thing damages of off
Knowledge (XXG) and the more casual people who spend time on it.
1760:
Usenet is self published it is no different then trying use a blog, a forum post or any other type of self published unreliable source. Once again if you disagree with this change policy. Until then stop trying to weasel around the fact that Usenet is not an acceptable source to establish
789:
Seriously as others have pointed out Usenet is not a valid source. And many of the book sources seem to not actually be about this MUD, one is an internet games directory which does nothing to establish notability. The other is using it as an example to demonstrate software. None of this
1790:
Your welcome to think but they are self published. Not to mention if if we were to accept these sources they still are not enough to prove notability. Even if we accept every single source and tiny mention you have found none of them even come close to establishing notability.
1373:
met current notability standards, which doesn't seem to be the case. It's really unfortunate that you can't remember any leads on that 1990s gaming publication appearance, because if it could be found, it would be far and away the best contribution to notability on hand.
1053:
Yeah, of course, Usenet bad, mainstream media good, whatever. Maybe it's time to set some new precedents, because that FAQ is a perfectly solid document. The other thing you're saying is nonsensical. Of course public code contributions by Arctic MUD developers, acting
1024:
Firstly, a Usenet group is not a reliable source (there's huge precedent on this) and secondly the developers writing a "useful" patch to correct an error in the host program doesn't affect the notability of Arctic MUD itself at all, which is what we're discussing here.
977:
non-notable and lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The only even vague claim of notability is that it's been running awhile, but yet it's far from the first MUD (they go back to the 70s) or even the first DikuMUD, so that claim is extremely weak at best.
1159:
I've tried educating you and giving you advice based on my five plus years of working on
Knowledge (XXG), mush of that time spent in AFD and in writing notability guidelines. If you choose to ignore advice than there is no further reason to carry on a conversation.
850:
It's an essay that attempts to document researched consensus rather than a single POV or a top-down legalistic behavioral prescription, and I'd like to see that addressed rather than blithely blown off because the document doesn't have a magical status.
804:
I don't happen to feel that the book sources demonstrate notability, but they certainly aren't zero reliable sources and a total absence of verifiability as is being claimed, either. You also seem to be laboring under a complete misapprehension that an
1851:
focusing a hell of a lot of attention on dismantling more internet history because the very medium it takes place on didn't keep a 10 year old article around for someone to find. All this rules lawyering over the subject is just plain ridiculous.
1547:
1805:
If you're going to dismiss them as "self-published" despite their lack of every issue that policy on self-publication is meant to avoid, that seems like the kind of obdurate legalistic application of the wording of rules, to the detriment of the
1260:. As to the rest, my point has been and remains that that acknowledgement means that the patch and language relating to it are documenting a public code contribution Arctic MUD made, and therefore are relevant to Arctic MUD and its notability. —
344:
anyway). There are no hits for this game in our videogames RS custom google search. I would guess that the best bet for coverage is in Dragon magazine or suchlike, if at all. But articles ought to be based on such sources in the first instance.
1869:. "Dismlantling internet history" isn't relevant as we only record what has already been published. If you want a specialist MUD encyclopdia that uses personal opinion/research or sources of any quality, you are more than welcome to start one.
1968:, some of it reasonable. Someone mentioned Mudpedia, which is exactly what I was thinking of above. Kallimina, you're completely right in that we don't treat notability as temporary. A published source from any date will be helpful.
1889:
outside of usenet. However muds have had a huge impact on modern-day gaming, with DikuMUD providing direct inspiration for numerous MMOs, so I'm rather concerned to see so many attempts to scrub them from Knowledge (XXG) history.
1289:
help you. Besides, this is all a bit moot since the FAQ in question has been examined and doesn't even mention Arctic MUD aside from a brief thank-you message to two developers who wrote a short piece of code to patch an error.
1175:
imagine you're right that there's no point in going on, though. As I said, I think that if one isn't going to accept the r.g.m.d FAQ as a source, that calls for the article's deletion, and clearly you aren't, so there we go. —
1058:
Arctic MUD developers, and recognition thereof is a factor in the notability of Arctic MUD, the same as press coverage of the actions of a Disney employee acting as a Disney employee is a factor in the notability of Disney.
654:
I guess it comes down to the FAQ, to me. If we may treat the rec.games.mud.diku FAQ as a reliable source, then I'd call it a keep. If not, then I'd call it a delete. I found the document I was thinking of regarding FAQs:
1482:
of MUD books, and I looked for Arctic in a bunch of them; nothing. It seems to have gotten prominent in the MUD community just when the wave of people writing about MUDs in books, in 1995 and 1996, was dying down.
955:
I think it's reasonable to say that verifiable longevity in an online game like this is a valid contributing factor to notability. I, myself, would not go so far as to say that it establishes notability by itself.
813:
the MUD in order to contribute here, which is simply wrong. Your directive that I should just "move on" from using the r.g.m.d FAQ as a source, without any hint of actually addressing or clarifying the language in
835:
is an essay not a guideline or a policy. Once again we need independent published sources that have substantial coverage of the subject. Trying to justify not having proper sourcing for this will get you nowhere.
293:
1656:
Although note that the two examples Jlambert gave are for topics that are directly associated with Usenet: it is being used as a primary source which is permitted if the secondary sources are strong enough.
1418:"This book includes descriptions of Web sites where readers can find the hottest online real-time games, in addition to how-to and strategy guides, non-real-time, proprietary, e-mail and listserv games"
625:
has nothing really except a screenshot — I don't actually know how to interpret that in terms of trivial/substantial coverage, come to think of it. (Is a picture actually worth a thousand words?) —
194:
1219:
Firstly, I strongly recommend you retract your unwarranted attacks on Ridernyc, those were uncalled for. Also, if the FAQ you've been desperately trying to get us to consider a reliable source is
901:
It's an essay it has no bearing, not to mention it has been inactive for at least 2 years. You would need to ignore multiple policies against self published sources to allow anything from usenet.
1623:
I think I've illustrated that your interpretation of the guidelines defies actual precedence and practice on Knowledge (XXG). How many examples of articles using USENET as sources would it take?
1551:
actually display it, I don't really know what the hell to say about it that would make sense to include it in the article as a reference, and it seems like yet another trivial mention anyway. —
52:
sourcing was found to effectively refute the delete arguments, which were solidly based on policy. The clear consensus is that this does not have adequate sourcing to allow it to be retained
1939:
Yes, I think it's actually mentioned in a few gaming magazines that are actually defunct, which makes it difficult to find them. I have to call the library and have them help me search.
1580:
just for starters. Not to be repetitive, but I will simply reiterate my strong disagreement with some of the more extreme interpretations of the Wiki guidelines in regard to Usenet.
2027:
80:
1546:
has another damnable trivial mention, one sentence and a URL where most games get a multiple paragraph review. Incidentally, I also found a mention in a professional journal, c.f.
1776:
refined documents that reflected a community consensus. By and large they can and should be taken seriously. Obviously you couldn't care less, but somebody ought to say it. —
248:
1087:
and try to get policy changed. Until then I recommend finding reliable published sources for this article. Your ranting about newsgroups is accomplishing nothing here.
769:
at the article? There are two book references, and of the two things that have anything to do with Usenet, one is sourced from faqs.org and the other from dikumud.com. —
287:
253:
1116:
You're not suggesting changing notability policy, you're suggesting (rather ridiculously) changing reliable sourcing policy, and the correct place to do that is at
1602:
1925:" concept. The difficulty is in establishing what was around before. I don't suppose you remember anything that would help find these print media mentions? —
365:
189:
1274:
Sure directing someone who wants to change policy to the proper forum to attempt to have that policy changed is a fools errand. I mean what was I thinking.
715:
no one has yet shown a single reliable source for any of this information. Unfortunately the nature of wikipedia makes verifiability through sources a must.
435:- I'm going to poke through my MUD-book pile, but I'm not feeling optimistic about this one. I threw in a couple Google Books references, but the one from
602:
verification, chaos. Can you confirm the "significance" of the coverage? If it's just a couple of sentences, then it is a candidate for merge/redirect.
865:
I am awaiting a reply on the RSE talk page regarding what is meant by "specific FAQs", but the context appears to be when writing about Usenet itself.
1410:- references given do not support the general notability guideline. No problem with recreation should notability/significant coverage be proven via
336:, where it was merely included in a directory of related sites without any commentry (indeed, one can "suggest a site for listing"). The second to
790:
establishes notability, none of it is about this mud. Also please move on from repeatedly pointing to a FAQ as a source to establish notability.
2170:
Agreed. No bias toward undeletion should suitable print sources be found, however two weeks is more than enough time to search for sources. --
1227:" and that's it. Seriously. Even if it were a reliable source (and it's still not) it says literally nothing about the topic of this AFD.
2036:
89:
640:
a MUD worth mentioning, then I recommend doing so at the DikuMUD and List of MUDs articles. I'd like to see some more !votes yet though.
369:
2066:
119:
1985:
17:
1421:
1984:
Marasmusine, I will start looking up some of the paper mentions via the library. A lot of the old sources can be found that way.
221:
216:
2204:
2179:
2155:
2052:
2007:
1993:
1977:
1948:
1934:
1916:
1898:
1878:
1860:
1824:
1800:
1785:
1770:
1752:
1729:
1703:
1688:
1676:
1666:
1647:
1632:
1614:
1589:
1577:
1560:
1537:
1510:
1492:
1471:
1455:
1441:
1398:
1383:
1360:
1308:
1283:
1269:
1246:
1214:
1199:
1184:
1169:
1154:
1139:
1111:
1096:
1068:
1044:
1019:
997:
965:
950:
934:
910:
888:
874:
860:
845:
827:
799:
778:
760:
742:
724:
704:
669:
649:
634:
611:
585:
560:
541:
523:
499:
485:
466:
452:
425:
407:
381:
354:
105:
56:
511:
733:
regarding Usenet FAQs and what status you assign the DikuMUD team's web site) reliable source references to the article. —
225:
308:
2219:
1866:
275:
36:
208:
2025:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
325:
78:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
930:
2098:
151:
2218:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2200:
1815:
an "I didn't hear that, it only said the MUD's name once so it can't be anything to do with the MUD" fashion. —
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1757:
269:
2082:
2056:
752:– Until there is something more concrete out there beside it appearing on Usenet (which there is no way to
443:
appearance is little better. If I don't find anything more substantial, I'm gonna have to say delete it. —
329:
135:
109:
1989:
2041:
94:
1973:
1874:
1662:
1195:
870:
700:
645:
607:
537:
495:
377:
350:
1429:
660:
r.g.m.d FAQ that would make it fail a test any other reasonable, well-curated FAQ would pass, though. —
416:, but that doesn't mean anything; the list is just using article existence as a proxy for notability. —
265:
926:
729:
Well, that's just not true. I've added from two to four (depending on interpretation of language in
212:
2196:
2003:
1944:
1930:
1912:
1820:
1781:
1748:
1699:
1643:
1556:
1533:
1506:
1488:
1451:
1379:
1265:
1210:
1180:
1150:
1107:
1064:
1015:
961:
884:
856:
823:
774:
738:
665:
630:
581:
462:
448:
421:
301:
687:
315:
2088:
2019:
1856:
1796:
1766:
1725:
1684:
1628:
1585:
1279:
1165:
1092:
946:
906:
841:
795:
757:
720:
556:
519:
481:
141:
72:
1922:
1344:
1252:
204:
62:
2175:
1610:
1467:
1446:
You already !voted. :) Shouldn't you supplement your first entry instead of making another? —
1437:
403:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
48:. There were a lot of non-policy based arguments putforward for keeping this but no reliable
1969:
1870:
1658:
1191:
866:
696:
641:
603:
533:
532:? A Usenet post is only going to be acceptable if the author has a prior publishing history
491:
373:
346:
1811:
1501:. Which is five trivial references in print sources, three of which are currently cited. —
1006:
832:
815:
730:
656:
529:
395:
1894:
1366:
756:
this as I cannot access any of this), then I'm afraid I have to agree with the nom here. –
337:
1411:
1117:
1084:
591:
341:
324:
I could not find any reliable secondary sources to support this article. Appears to fail
1710:
Policy states the and endless debates establish that Usenet is not an acceptable source.
281:
2137:
1999:
1940:
1926:
1908:
1816:
1777:
1744:
1720:
If you don't like that change policy. Once again debating this point here is useless.
1695:
1639:
1552:
1529:
1502:
1484:
1447:
1394:
1375:
1356:
1290:
1261:
1251:
Attacks? Bit strong, don't you think? In any event, I believe I shall call a spade a
1228:
1206:
1176:
1146:
1121:
1103:
1060:
1026:
1011:
979:
957:
880:
852:
819:
770:
765:
Seriously, what is going on here? Are people just consistently writing !votes without
734:
661:
626:
577:
458:
444:
417:
1425:
753:
439:
is the most trivial mention imaginable, an entry in a copy-and-paste mudlist, and the
340:, where the information seems to have been taken down (and the site doesn't look like
1852:
1792:
1762:
1721:
1680:
1624:
1581:
1573:
1275:
1161:
1088:
942:
902:
837:
791:
716:
552:
515:
477:
1601:- fair enough, but we're just going by precedence here. I would suggest hitting up
941:
So we should just totally ignore policy because it has been around for a long time?
2171:
2116:
2104:
2072:
1965:
1606:
1463:
1433:
818:
that potentially supports using it as a source, is inappropriate and patronizing. —
413:
399:
391:
169:
157:
125:
53:
242:
2051:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1416:
print/web sources. The first source, Internet Games Directory, is summarized as
104:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
547:
Arctic Mud) and later in 2003 on the official DikuMud site. That is why I vote
1220:
457:
rec.games.mud.diku FAQ appearance is decent, though. Maybe there's hope yet. —
1890:
1572:- There's quite a bit of precedent for citing USENET articles as sources. See
1257:
490:
What's your keep rationale? Have you found significant coverage of this game?
1524:
By leveling up my google-fu I have found a lead on a new print reference, in
333:
1605:
if you'd really like to make changes to policy. Not much we can do here. --
1390:
1352:
1961:
1638:
closing admin may, and IMO should, take that into account in their close. —
1223:, then it doesn't really mention Arctic MUD at all, it just says to thank "
1921:
That line of thinking is recognized and supported in Knowledge (XXG)'s "
879:
Thanks for looking into it. That'd be good to have clear in general. —
690:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
2212:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
621:
just has a mudlist entry (verifies codebase, that's about it).
1225:
Dean Gaudet and Jeffery Stine of ArcticMud for the socket patch
598:
to use. But it doesn't matter, as again you've managed to find
394:. Couldn't find any reliable, significant coverage to satisfy
2014:
1190:
wrong) If so, this passionate exchange seems redundant to me.
514:
If I'm not mistaken it's now the 2nd longest running DikuMud.
67:
2045:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
1478:
Print sources are not looking so hot, by the way. I have a
98:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
476:- The history of the internet did not begin with the WWW.
1865:
Well there's several straw-man arguments there as well as
2035:
among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
88:
among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
1462:
Sorry about that. Changed this section to a comment. --
1367:
http://www.dl3e.com/community/links/category.aspx?id=14
238:
234:
230:
300:
1497:
Though there is another trivial mudlist reference in
1365:
For what it's worth, I attempted dead link rescue of
1083:
You are more than welcome to visit the talk page at
510:
Yeah, thousands of mentions on Usenet including the
695:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
314:
528:Aaah, I see. Did you know about our guidelines on
332:. Note that I have removed two references. One to
1603:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Identifying reliable sources
195:Articles for deletion/Arctic MUD (2nd nomination)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2222:). No further edits should be made to this page.
366:list of video game related deletion discussions
1528:, which I have at home. More as it happens. —
2195:as Usenet postings are not reliable sources.
2065:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
118:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
590:Well, Usenet is mentioned repeatedly in the
2039:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
92:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
2059:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
594:talk archives as an example of a source
364:: This debate has been included in the
112:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
187:
390:- but check to see if it's listed in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
186:
24:
1424:, which sounds more like a list,
2018:
190:Articles for deletion/Arctic MUD
71:
1743:Policy states no such thing. —
1007:screw all this courtroom drama
1:
2055:on the part of others and to
108:on the part of others and to
2205:21:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
2180:21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
2156:17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
2008:03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
1994:03:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
1978:16:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
1949:03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
1935:15:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
1923:Notability is not temporary
1917:15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
1899:13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
1879:09:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
1345:notability is not temporary
1145:faqs.org and dikumud.com? —
512:The Historical DikuMUD List
57:04:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
2239:
1861:23:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1825:20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1801:19:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1786:17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1771:15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1753:15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1730:14:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1704:15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1689:20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1675:Do you really believe the
1667:14:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1648:13:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1633:20:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1615:13:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1590:04:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1561:00:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
1538:21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
1511:13:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1499:Secrets of the MUD Wizards
1493:21:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
1472:23:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
1456:20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
1442:20:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
1430:request it to be undeleted
1399:08:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
1384:20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
1361:18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
1309:16:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
1284:04:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
1270:23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1247:22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1215:20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1200:19:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1185:18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1170:18:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1155:17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1140:17:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1112:17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1097:16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1069:15:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1045:15:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
1020:15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
998:15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
966:14:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
951:14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
935:13:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
911:14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
889:15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
875:13:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
861:13:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
846:12:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
828:11:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
800:11:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
779:06:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
761:02:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
743:02:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
725:01:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
705:00:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
670:21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
650:07:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
635:02:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
1677:Tanenbaum–Torvalds_debate
1578:Tanenbaum–Torvalds_debate
612:21:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
586:20:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
561:14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
542:14:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
524:13:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
500:11:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
486:22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
467:21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
453:20:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
426:20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
408:20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
382:20:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
370:Search video game sources
355:20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
2215:Please do not modify it.
1960:off-site discussions at
1548:this Google Books result
619:Internet Games Directory
437:Internet Games Directory
32:Please do not modify it.
2097:; accounts blocked for
2067:single-purpose accounts
2037:policies and guidelines
150:; accounts blocked for
120:single-purpose accounts
90:policies and guidelines
530:self-published sources
185:AfDs for this article:
1810:of those rules, that
334:dragonlance-movie.com
623:Internet After Hours
441:Internet After Hours
2049:by counting votes.
2028:not a majority vote
1998:Sorry that was me.
1426:verifying it exists
102:by counting votes.
81:not a majority vote
1867:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
1679:is about USENET?
44:The result was
2130:
2129:
2126:
2053:assume good faith
707:
384:
183:
182:
179:
106:assume good faith
2230:
2217:
2153:
2150:
2147:
2144:
2124:
2112:
2096:
2080:
2061:
2031:, but instead a
2022:
2015:
1306:
1303:
1300:
1297:
1256:to know to be a
1244:
1241:
1238:
1235:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1033:
995:
992:
989:
986:
694:
692:
360:
326:WP:Verifiability
319:
318:
304:
256:
246:
228:
177:
165:
149:
133:
114:
84:, but instead a
75:
68:
34:
2238:
2237:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2220:deletion review
2213:
2151:
2148:
2145:
2142:
2114:
2102:
2086:
2070:
2057:sign your posts
1542:Great defeat.
1304:
1301:
1298:
1295:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1233:
1135:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1040:
1037:
1034:
1031:
993:
990:
987:
984:
685:
261:
252:
219:
203:
200:
167:
155:
139:
123:
110:sign your posts
66:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2236:
2234:
2225:
2224:
2208:
2207:
2197:Whose Your Guy
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2138:Andrew Lenahan
2128:
2127:
2023:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
1981:
1980:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1901:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1758:WP:SELFPUBLISH
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1691:
1670:
1669:
1651:
1650:
1635:
1618:
1617:
1593:
1592:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1495:
1475:
1474:
1459:
1458:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1347:I'd still say
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1291:Andrew Lenahan
1286:
1229:Andrew Lenahan
1122:Andrew Lenahan
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1048:
1047:
1027:Andrew Lenahan
1000:
980:Andrew Lenahan
971:
970:
969:
968:
938:
937:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
784:
783:
782:
781:
747:
746:
745:
709:
708:
693:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
505:
504:
503:
502:
471:
470:
469:
430:
429:
428:
385:
322:
321:
258:
254:AfD statistics
199:
198:
197:
192:
184:
181:
180:
76:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2235:
2223:
2221:
2216:
2210:
2209:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2191:
2190:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2157:
2154:
2139:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2122:
2118:
2110:
2106:
2100:
2094:
2090:
2084:
2078:
2074:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2058:
2054:
2048:
2044:
2043:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2029:
2024:
2021:
2017:
2016:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1982:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1956:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1905:
1902:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1887:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1849:
1846:
1845:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1813:
1809:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1759:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1692:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1636:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1522:
1518:
1517:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1409:
1406:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1341:
1338:
1337:
1310:
1307:
1292:
1287:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1258:fool's errand
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1043:
1028:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1008:
1005:God, y'know,
1004:
1001:
999:
996:
981:
976:
973:
972:
967:
963:
959:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
939:
936:
932:
928:
923:
920:
919:
912:
908:
904:
900:
890:
886:
882:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
864:
863:
862:
858:
854:
849:
848:
847:
843:
839:
834:
831:
830:
829:
825:
821:
817:
812:
808:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
788:
787:
786:
785:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
763:
762:
759:
755:
751:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
714:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
691:
689:
684:
683:
671:
667:
663:
658:
653:
652:
651:
647:
643:
638:
637:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
588:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
571:
562:
558:
554:
550:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
506:
501:
497:
493:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:WP:Notability
327:
317:
313:
310:
307:
303:
299:
295:
292:
289:
286:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
267:
264:
263:Find sources:
259:
255:
250:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
223:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
201:
196:
193:
191:
188:
175:
171:
163:
159:
153:
147:
143:
137:
131:
127:
121:
117:
113:
111:
107:
101:
97:
96:
91:
87:
83:
82:
77:
74:
70:
69:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2214:
2211:
2192:
2141:
2120:
2108:
2099:sockpuppetry
2092:
2081:; suspected
2076:
2062:
2050:
2046:
2040:
2032:
2026:
1986:64.253.96.96
1962:mudbutes.net
1957:
1903:
1885:
1847:
1807:
1761:notability.
1719:
1598:
1574:Godwin's_law
1569:
1543:
1525:
1520:
1519:
1498:
1479:
1417:
1412:
1407:
1370:
1348:
1339:
1294:
1232:
1224:
1125:
1055:
1030:
1002:
983:
974:
921:
810:
806:
766:
749:
712:
686:
622:
618:
599:
595:
573:
548:
473:
440:
436:
432:
414:List of MUDs
392:List of MUDs
387:
361:
323:
311:
305:
297:
290:
284:
278:
272:
262:
173:
161:
152:sockpuppetry
145:
134:; suspected
129:
115:
103:
99:
93:
85:
79:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1970:Marasmusine
1871:Marasmusine
1659:Marasmusine
1544:Net Games 2
1526:Net Games 2
1192:Marasmusine
867:Marasmusine
807:entire book
697:Ron Ritzman
642:Marasmusine
604:Marasmusine
534:Marasmusine
492:Marasmusine
374:Marasmusine
347:Marasmusine
288:free images
50:non trivial
2033:discussion
1966:arctic.org
1422:amazon.com
809:has to be
205:Arctic MUD
86:discussion
63:Arctic MUD
2089:canvassed
2083:canvassed
2042:consensus
2000:Kallimina
1941:Kallimina
1927:chaos5023
1909:Kallimina
1817:chaos5023
1778:chaos5023
1745:chaos5023
1696:chaos5023
1640:chaos5023
1553:chaos5023
1530:chaos5023
1503:chaos5023
1485:chaos5023
1448:chaos5023
1376:chaos5023
1262:chaos5023
1207:chaos5023
1177:chaos5023
1147:chaos5023
1104:chaos5023
1061:chaos5023
1012:chaos5023
958:chaos5023
881:chaos5023
853:chaos5023
820:chaos5023
771:chaos5023
735:chaos5023
662:chaos5023
627:chaos5023
600:published
578:chaos5023
574:Weak Keep
459:chaos5023
445:chaos5023
418:chaos5023
142:canvassed
136:canvassed
95:consensus
2121:username
2115:{{subst:
2109:username
2103:{{subst:
2093:username
2087:{{subst:
2077:username
2071:{{subst:
1793:Ridernyc
1763:Ridernyc
1722:Ridernyc
1681:Jlambert
1625:Jlambert
1582:Jlambert
1413:reliable
1276:Ridernyc
1253:WP:SPADE
1221:this one
1162:Ridernyc
1089:Ridernyc
943:Ridernyc
903:Ridernyc
838:Ridernyc
792:Ridernyc
758:MuZemike
717:Ridernyc
688:Relisted
553:Jlambert
516:Jlambert
478:Jlambert
412:It's in
338:dl3e.com
249:View log
174:username
168:{{subst:
162:username
156:{{subst:
146:username
140:{{subst:
130:username
124:{{subst:
2172:Teancum
2085:users:
1808:purpose
1607:Teancum
1570:Comment
1521:Hold on
1464:Teancum
1434:Teancum
1408:Comment
1340:Comment
1003:Comment
925:still.
767:looking
433:Comment
400:Teancum
294:WPÂ refs
282:scholar
222:protect
217:history
138:users:
54:Spartaz
2193:Delete
1853:Samson
1812:WP:IAR
975:Delete
833:WP:RSE
816:WP:RSE
754:verify
750:Delete
731:WP:RSE
713:Delete
657:WP:RSE
396:WP:GNG
388:Delete
266:Google
226:delete
46:delete
2063:Note:
1891:KaVir
1599:Reply
1118:WP:RS
1085:WP:RS
811:about
592:WP:RS
342:WP:RS
309:JSTOR
270:books
243:views
235:watch
231:links
116:Note:
16:<
2201:talk
2176:talk
2004:talk
1990:talk
1974:talk
1964:and
1958:Note
1945:talk
1931:talk
1913:talk
1904:Keep
1895:talk
1886:Keep
1875:talk
1857:talk
1848:Keep
1821:talk
1797:talk
1782:talk
1767:talk
1749:talk
1726:talk
1700:talk
1685:talk
1663:talk
1644:talk
1629:talk
1611:talk
1586:talk
1576:and
1557:talk
1534:talk
1507:talk
1489:talk
1468:talk
1452:talk
1438:talk
1432:. --
1395:talk
1391:Wiw8
1380:talk
1371:ever
1357:talk
1353:Wiw8
1349:Keep
1280:talk
1266:talk
1211:talk
1196:talk
1181:talk
1166:talk
1151:talk
1108:talk
1093:talk
1065:talk
1016:talk
962:talk
947:talk
931:talk
922:Keep
907:talk
885:talk
871:talk
857:talk
842:talk
824:talk
796:talk
775:talk
739:talk
721:talk
701:talk
666:talk
646:talk
631:talk
608:talk
582:talk
557:talk
549:KEEP
538:talk
520:talk
496:talk
482:talk
474:Keep
463:talk
449:talk
422:talk
404:talk
398:. --
378:talk
362:Note
351:talk
328:and
302:FENS
276:news
239:logs
213:talk
209:edit
2149:bli
2117:csp
2113:or
2105:csm
2073:spa
2047:not
1480:lot
1420:at
1302:bli
1240:bli
1133:bli
1038:bli
991:bli
927:lav
596:not
551:.
368:. (
316:TWL
251:•
247:– (
170:csp
166:or
158:csm
126:spa
100:not
2203:)
2178:)
2152:nd
2146:ar
2143:St
2140:-
2123:}}
2111:}}
2101::
2095:}}
2079:}}
2069::
2006:)
1992:)
1976:)
1947:)
1933:)
1915:)
1897:)
1877:)
1859:)
1823:)
1799:)
1784:)
1769:)
1751:)
1728:)
1702:)
1687:)
1665:)
1646:)
1631:)
1613:)
1588:)
1559:)
1536:)
1509:)
1491:)
1470:)
1454:)
1440:)
1397:)
1382:)
1359:)
1305:nd
1299:ar
1296:St
1293:-
1282:)
1268:)
1243:nd
1237:ar
1234:St
1231:-
1213:)
1198:)
1183:)
1168:)
1153:)
1136:nd
1130:ar
1127:St
1124:-
1110:)
1095:)
1067:)
1056:as
1041:nd
1035:ar
1032:St
1029:-
1018:)
994:nd
988:ar
985:St
982:-
964:)
949:)
933:)
909:)
887:)
873:)
859:)
844:)
826:)
798:)
777:)
741:)
723:)
703:)
668:)
648:)
633:)
610:)
584:)
559:)
540:)
522:)
498:)
484:)
465:)
451:)
424:)
406:)
380:)
372:)
353:)
296:)
241:|
237:|
233:|
229:|
224:|
220:|
215:|
211:|
176:}}
164:}}
154::
148:}}
132:}}
122::
2199:(
2174:(
2125:.
2119:|
2107:|
2091:|
2075:|
2002:(
1988:(
1972:(
1943:(
1929:(
1911:(
1893:(
1873:(
1855:(
1819:(
1795:(
1780:(
1765:(
1747:(
1724:(
1698:(
1683:(
1661:(
1642:(
1627:(
1609:(
1584:(
1555:(
1532:(
1505:(
1487:(
1483:—
1466:(
1450:(
1436:(
1393:(
1378:(
1374:—
1355:(
1278:(
1264:(
1209:(
1194:(
1179:(
1164:(
1149:(
1106:(
1091:(
1063:(
1059:—
1014:(
960:(
956:—
945:(
929:(
905:(
883:(
869:(
855:(
851:—
840:(
822:(
794:(
773:(
737:(
719:(
699:(
664:(
644:(
629:(
606:(
580:(
555:(
536:(
518:(
494:(
480:(
461:(
447:(
420:(
402:(
376:(
349:(
320:)
312:·
306:·
298:·
291:·
285:·
279:·
273:·
268:(
260:(
257:)
245:)
207:(
178:.
172:|
160:|
144:|
128:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
