Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online creation

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 NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ^ask? 12:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online_creation

Delete textbook case of vanity neologism, gamecruft, and original research (NiMUD author creating page and claiming coinage of terms/page title). I've adapted any interesting sourced and cited information uncovered here to various other pages, TinyMUD and MUDS. Jlambert 18:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep what does that have to do with this article? current version does not display any such claims. your reasons for deletion are actually reasons to keep it. Young Zaphod 20:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

More: {{weasel}} and Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. toward contributers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Young_Zaphod (talk • contribs) .

Is there some reason that this AfD page has warnings on it? --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using these over aggressive templates. Calsicol 01:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep seems interesting enough. I think we should make wiki a friendlier place and allow some time for third party sourcing. --CyclePat 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article definitely is being claimed by NiMUD author. He's been consistently changing things to promote NiMUD and insult the others, and prevents contributions by any other editors. Refusal to cooperate with mediation [1] [2], constant personal attacks [3] (with various socks), and shenanigans elsewhere in Wikipedia [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] show that it isn't going to get any better. Other inclusionist editors have tried to improve the article to promote MUDs in general, but author insists on fighting everything; refers to nearly all edits by other people as being "vandalism". Info is repeated from the other related articles, so this one really offers nothing unique, and isn't worth making an effort to fix. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• To the contrary, the author of NiMUD isn't even here... and all edits were taken into account. 151.201.48.208 03:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - this technical milestone is already covered in MUD#History, and this article is just pushing a neologism/littlethingytriviaterm. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ehh, should stop reading AfDs at four in the morning. There's more stuff after the intro. Anyway, the rest of the article seem a little bit overeager; if we want examples on how to create rooms or whatever, those should be documented in appropriate articles. The concept itself can be covered in MUD without any new funny possibly system-dependent terms. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It's actually been removed from the Mud#History, so what do you think of your vote for deletion now? 151.201.48.208 03:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
      • "...introduced the ability for the players to easily participate in creating the online environment..." Hum, the passage I found there yesterday is still there! My point is, there's no point in creating a separate article for a concept this simple. Whatever terminology different MUDs use for this should be covered in the appropriate MUD driver family articles (eg LPMud), or respective programming language article (eg LPC programming language). Though I may have been a little bit too harsh, now that I've woken up and had coffee; I'm not really mad if the article is kept. It's mostly the title and scope that jars me. So I'm only saying Weak delete. I'm only swayed to Keep if someone comes up with a better, non-technology-specific title, like "On-line modifiability of MUD game worlds" but not clumsy like that. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, the reason it's titled "OLC" is because that's what it's known as in the MUD community - it's the term I use, and other than "building", it's the only other term I see used by others. Are you proposing a move to "Building (Online games)" or similar? That would include graphical MMORPGs' building systems as well - maybe not a bad thing, as it's basically the same scope, just flashier and less prose. --Sam Pointon 13:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, if that truly is a term recognized widely - it's just that I've never heard of it, but perhaps I'm just in wrong circles, which admittedly aren't too large =) I'm saying Keep, then. Can't hurt much, and one blood-demanding voice isn't going to sway things much anyway. Consider having redirects, though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Whoops! Meant Weak keep, obviously And now I'm not going to change vote anymore! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
            • And one further comment: If this is kept, and anyone proposes merging this to somewhere, heck no, I'm not opposing, I'm encouraging it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Draktus 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This represents Draktus's second post. To date, his four edits have been to this page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NiMUD --Karnesky 11:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Online Creation" (--unsigned post by Draktus)

• And this would be Draktus's second edit on this page. I've stricken it, so that there is only one vote for this possible sock-puppet. --Karnesky 11:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it, it's a real thing that should have its own article and its long and (I think) well-written. If the author is preventing other people from editing, that should be dealt with elsewhere. Grandmasterka 08:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; OLC in its many forms is worthy of being wiki'd. The obvious editor conflicts needs to be dealt with in some other manner. -Phorteetoo 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As above. OLC is an important MUD concept, and, if needs be, the article can be sorted out to remove the above cited cruft and PoV. --Sam Pointon 12:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (hey, remembered to sign my name this time.)
• Delete I think, since once the vanispamcruft is stripped out, what remains is pretty trivial, obvious from the title, and already covered in MUD. Guy 13:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Ifnord 15:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Essential to MUDing history. Eht Lived 21:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Please see this user's extremely limited contribution history. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Which is to say THIS AfD, his user page, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NiMUD. How many sock puppets do we need in this?!?! --Karnesky 01:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • s/Essential to/Already included in/ Just zis Guy you know? 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. I think this is a potentially notable topic, but I can find precious little that is worth salvaging. --Karnesky 03:20, 22 February 2006 (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.