Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetolia, the Midnight Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. As it stands notability hasn't even been asserted, let alone verified by credible sources, so the fact that this discussion has received little participation apart from that of single purpose accounts (who can be discounted) is rendered irrelevant by the fact that policy is to delete such articles anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aetolia, the Midnight Age

As per the prod made 17/07/06; No claim of notability. Prod removed by Lor772 with the comment This is quite a notable game, existing alongside Achaea as its sole sister project for many years. However there is no claim of notability in the article (which almost resembles a game guide.) Marasmusine 21:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Seems to be notable. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thinly-veiled advertisement for a pay-for-play text game. [1] —Cryptic 00:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT! I've been playing this game for years and there is no requirement to pay to play.
  • KEEP IT* I play, it's very useful to those who play, and in addition as the previous poster meant, paying is OPTIONAL to play this game.
  • KEEP IT! I've been playing this game for years off and on, and find it to be the best of all IRE games. I've read through all the information and it seems notable information and credible in entirety. Paying is optional, it is not enforced. A player can earn the 'credits' that you can purchase within the game relatively easily currently. If you do decide to pay, or buy, it is your own choice if you want to. But I know many people who have played without paying a single dime, and have instead earned credits over time and work. If you are looking for a place to roleplay that is unique, this is it.
    • Comment; the issue is not if it is a commercial game or not, but if it is notable. The article doesn't even claim any notability.
  • KEEP IT!!!* this is NOT a pay to play game.
  • KEEP IT* As one of the biggest and most notable MUDs left in the world I think the notability need not be brought up more than it has. The millions of people that play MMORPGs should be at the very least interested in a prime example of what made developers willing to produce the new, impressive, and impressively expensive games on the market.
    • With all due respect to the above anonymous users, it doesn't seem like they have read WP:Notability. Here's a bit: In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources. No such sources are cited in the article. Perhaps as players of the game you could find some? Marasmusine 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT* The only websites associated with Iron Realms Entertainment in the External Links section are www.achaea.com and www.ironrealms.com All the other sites are not affiliated with the company in any way.
    • They are also almost entirely links normally to be avoided. Marasmusine 22:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Seems to me that perhaps all articles related to Iron Realms Entertainment need to be merged into one article then. This article, the one on Achaea, Imperian, Lusternia and all the others ought to be redirected to Irone Realms Entertainment then each mud ought to have its own section under the Iron Realms Entertainment Article.
  • Keep. There is no good reason to delete this article, it is valid information on a game not an advertisement.
      • KEEEEP ITTTT Aetolia's effing leet! It's an elaborate, complex, and yet so FULFILLING game! I keep more up-to-date with it than I do the local news! I shower more on there than do I in real life! Aetolia is a drug. Keep it.
        • Comment: Hello anonymous user, I'm glad that you enjoy it but the quality of the game is irrelevant. What we are looking at is notability. Now it's mentioned above that Aetolia is "one of the biggest and most notable MUDs", but this isn't shown in the article. It would be good if that statement can be backed up. Lt Penguins idea for merging Iron Realms Entertainment with the four games into one article is interesting but even looking at those, not a single cited claim of notability has been made. Marasmusine 06:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep though meatpuppets/single-purpose accounts have attempted to sway this AfD, the article seems quite detailed. Note I have removed many of the external links: Wikipedia is not a respoitory of links. — Gary Kirk // talk! 14:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's quite detailed. Original research is like that. —Cryptic 21:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP IT! Well apparently www.topmudsites.com thinks that Aetolia is of some note. I mean, Aetolia as well as the other IRE games have been in their top 10 for months. (in the case of Achaea a couple years)
    • Yes, and? Unless there are independent, reliable sources for the information in the article, we can't keep it regardless of how wonderful its players think it is. See WP:SOFTWARE for guidelines on the sort of software articles we include. Convincing the players to click on a button on another web site every day for months isn't one of the criteria. —Cryptic 21:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The information in the article is about a fictional game world. How can fictional information that is made up by the creators of said game world be independently verified?
        • Comment: It's not the 'story' content that is the issue, but the game itself. From WP:SOFTWARE: Software is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.... (etc) Now of the 'reviews' linked from the article, Frappr doesn't contain any information (apart from some kind of player map), and GameOgre and GameSpy merely print the cut-and-paste advertising blurb with NO user or staff reviews or scores. Marasmusine 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
          • What is the justification for all the other text muds that are listed under the MU* category then? Why is Aetolia the only one being deleted? Achaea has been the subject of an article by Dr. Bartlet, a feature on the TechTV show The Screen Savers, as well as a few other sources. Thus by your criteria I understand why Achaea MUD is an article. Aetolia is made by the same company (Iron Realms Entertainment) which makes Achaea, Lusternia and the others. I've reviewed some of the other muds listed and they do not meet the criteria by which Aetolia is in danger of being deleted under... why is that?
            • Because they haven't been deleted yet. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Feel free to nominate them. —Cryptic 22:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
              • With all due respect to Cryptic, this policy might need to be revised in regards to text based Muds, Mushes, Mux, etc. This sort of "software" is not "software" at all and instead describe virtual communities/games that are more often than not under the radar when it comes to reviews and your criterion of "notability" will likely only be met by perhaps one or two of these text games. Most of them do not have software that you need to install on your computer to play them besides what's called a client programme. Client programmes are standardized across the industry and you do not need a "special client" to play a particular game, although some games make clients that tailor the mud experience to their own game.
              • "The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor." It seems to me that by that provision, Aetolia meetst the notability requirement as it is a core product of Iron Realms Entertainment.
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.