Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeviousMUD

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 redirect. No sources were presented... really needs those for a standalone article. Undo the redirect when sources are found or better yet can be cited. W.marsh 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DeviousMUD

DeviousMUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

First off, there seem to be few or no sources for this. After ignoring that, it really isn't notable enough. Runescape is, of course, but as the edit summary says, this is not Runescape. Amarkov blahedits 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge into Runescape. I could not find sources that discussed DeviousMUD on its own terms, rather than as merely the forerunner to Runescape. Plus the article is so short that at the present time it makes more sense to discuss it as part of the development of Runescape. If the Runescape article's discussion of its predecessor grows to such a point that it is too big for that article, it can be split off at that time. JChap2007 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I found this on rogue subpage patrol. It passed the cruft and gameguide tests, but I wasn't sure about notability. It seems to assert some, by being the direct predecessor to RuneScape, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt and added it to the templates, lists, etc. to see if it could get some traffic and edits. Otherwise, I would have re-redirected it or prodded it like the clan vanispamcruftisment and non-notable bot I found aswell. To be fair, we could do with better coverage of DevMUD and RSC, if possible. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Better coverage would be nice, but as the article indicates, we can't even source the coverage we have. -Amarkov blahedits 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Merge. Everything that is/can be covered in this article is/could be in the RuneScape article. It could never be expanded to a good quality. Dtm142 16:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete last time I checked, some DeviousMUD info was already on the RS article. Unless we can get some sources or references, this needs to be deleted -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back or delete Redirect to RS article Whilst Devious is an important part of RS' development history, if you guys can't find any sources then I'm sure I won't. Without them and without enough information this article has no hope of remaining or flowering, might as well deal with it now and save contributors' time. QuagmireDog 12:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Further, fails WP:WEB completely, no secondary sources, not even a primary source is available. A googling with WP removed results in under 1000 results [1], the foremost being the RS Wiki and RS fansites, others being either WP mirrors or similar sites and the rest appearing to be blog-posts - none of which are reliable, none of which present the information any better than the source used for DeviousMUD in the RS article. In order to stand up as a seperate subject, there needs to be sources demonstrating the fact. There is no new information in this article and sources, the net result of it being the creation of problems where there weren't any. That this article was created is not a problem, it becomes a problem when it is kept for secondary sources which do not exist. If circumstances change, this article can quickly spring back up, but nothing has changed and its creation was not necessary. QuagmireDog 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is/was a seperate game to RS, and deleting it because it is a stub is not good enough. Keep it so we can extend it and improve it. A google search comes up with over 1300 results, Im sure some of them can be of use when it comes to improving this article. Its not cruft because it is a seperate game, as opposed to a part of RuneScape. If it gets to a few months down the line and its still a stub, then reconsider nominating it then. It was only made into a seperate article on the 15th of January. You cant expect it to be a good article after just 4 days - • The Giant Puffin • 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seperate game to RS. A stub does not warrant deletion because it's a stub. Englishrose 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • An unsourced stub, though... -Amark moo! 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Failing keep, merge with RuneScape, but this is an example of something that really deserves its own article even if it may have to stay a stub. Notability is provided by its relation to RuneScape. I'll try to find some more information to add, but I doubt anyone not involved with Jagex or who played RuneScape since the very early days will know much. Still, I think it should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alternator (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Hang on a sec, it can't be a component of RS and a seperate entity, it either forms part of an article which does pass the policies and guidelines or stands on its own two feet and does the same. The creation of this article asserts that it is a seperate entity and therefore can be judged as such. It fails WP:WEB, further expansion is unverifiable and will be original research, since no further sources are forthcoming. Sources have been looked for before in order to reference the DeviousMUD entry in the RS page, the opportunity for them to manifest has been a lot longer than the lifespan of this article. Sorry but I don't see why this 'deserves' an article when it can never hope to be a full article and pass the afformentioned, especially when the information is all contained on the RS page and we stand to lose nothing from this article being redirected. QuagmireDog 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. There is probably a way to get more info, yet it isn't overly notable, yet moving the info here could shorten RuneScape, yet... See? I can't make up my mind. → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKSCRS 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. It is a separate game, but it was only released as a beta for one week; I say keep by default because it is still useful for the RuneScape article. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 14:29, 25 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.