Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkmists

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darkmists

Darkmists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable online RPG. Article lists unencyclopedic in-game concepts without establishing any notability Percy Snoodle 10:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:WEB. No alexa rank. MER-C 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement, language used isn't objective. McBrain 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

-McBrain, it's interesting how you say that the page is an advertisement when you have added 7 entries yourself to the Dark Mists Wikipedia page. :) ArzosahDM 08:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as failure of WP:WEB, no references and no assertion of notability. It is absolutely VITAL that MMOGs, flash games and indie games establish their notability. I couldn't find any mention of awards from the game's home page either, there's nothing to go on. QuagmireDog 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Responses to Comments:

-MER-C, per alexa.com darkmists.org has been online since September 5, 2000. There is no ranking data evident because the contact information was incomplete before; it does not say ranking is below 100,000. I had revised the contact information yesterday and hopefully the ranking would show up properly in a few days' time (per alexa). This issue has been resolved then, and if we look at existence online, it's been more than six years.

-Edison, I am sorry, but the remark "Delete per nominator" is not helpful and does not contribute to this discussion on whether the entry about an RPG MUD should be deleted. From your remark, there is no specific reason/direct explanation given on why it should be deleted or what any contributor could do to make the entry "more notable". "Delete per nominator" is simply agreeing with the nominator's viewpoint. This is not a "voting session" but a "discussion page".

-QuagmireDog, what do you think a text-based MUD could do to become "notable"? What content should we be referencing? We have stock classes/races as well as our own unique blend. Our areas are mostly original, though. Should we include a listing of all our areas (close to 300 of them) and indicate the full names of the builders for originality? There is no mention of an award because our players came to the game by word of mouth originally, and it is only recently that we have explored marketing more over the internet.

For the record, the original contributor of the Wikipedia entry is "SweetAndy" one of our players and not a game administrator; therefore his comments are not for self-publicity. There have been additions to the page from other players and then the admin staff from a few days' ago.

Dark Mists has been in existence since 1996. There have been other text-based MUDs whose entries have been retained. I have looked at their sites... there are no mention of awards and no other references listed other than their own website or forums, even unofficial ones created by players. I have also looked at their alexa.com ratings and some of them show "No Data" as well under "Traffic Rank".

We would work with the reviewers in resolving the notability issue if there is concrete detail that could be provided as to why this page entry should be removed from Wikipedia.com, keeping in mind that we are speaking of a text-based MUD where players log-in to assume a medieval fantasy role, interact with others socially or have player-versus-player combat with one another in a more traditional fashion, and not a graphical MUD where players log-in to be "entertained" per se, visually. Overall, I feel the remarks all fall under the category of "This page should be deleted because it ought to be deleted.", especially stating the term "unencyclopedic". ArzosahDM 05:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• The 'concrete detail' has already been provided. The article does not pass WP:WEB, the guideline used to judge notability of web content. "This page should be deleted because it ought to be deleted" was not the assertion, WP:WEB was linked twice already and you've obviously seen them since you've replied to myself and the other contributor who cited it.
• Notability is shorthand for external review and/or observation. Non-notability is not shorthand for "this is crap" or "we need more in-universe info", it's highlighting the lack of sources. Coming to WP and seeing something you're involved with personally described as non-notable can easily feel like a personal attack and a negative judgement on the quality of the subject. That's something I can quite understand, but it isn't the intention, it's just Wikipedia terminology for something which hasn't demonstrated outside attention within the article itself.
• WP is a tertiary source taking details from secondary sources to provide details for articles. Without secondary sources the article is not providing a rounded picture of the subject, nor is the article doing something which hasn't been done by elsewhere by Darkmists and its fans.
• Articles stand or fall on their own merits, that other MUDs which appear to be in the same position are listed here has no bearing on this AFD process, see WP:INN for details. There's nothing to stop such entries being listed for AFD at any point, just that nobody has had the time or inclination yet.
• A notable award, of some sort, would have passed one of the criteria for WP:WEB. Other things which would help would be reviews, reports etc. from folks not involved with Darkmists. Those outside reports would also have to come from a reliable source (see WP:RS). If yourself or anyone else finds something that seems to come from a reliable source then please provide it for discussion. The other criteria (distribution through a well known source) doesn't seem to apply. QuagmireDog 08:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this ASAP. While I am an administrator at this game and in general like the idea of having a Wikipedia entry for our game, this entry is being used as a verbal war in public by a few players who have bad attitudes toward the admin of the game. (Reference http://newdarkmists.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=491) It is a waste of our time and yours to be attempting to maintain an objective look at this entry. ---DM Immortal, 1/11/2007 noonish
  • Comment if you regard this as an "attack page" you could suggest speedy deletion under criterion G10 - Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile") - by putting {{db-attack}} at the top of the article. However, it would seem that ArzosahDM contests the deletion so it might be better just to let the AfD run its course. Percy Snoodle 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, Percy Snoodle, my contention of the deletion was made prior to recent disparaging entries. ArzosahDM 10:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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.