Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alter Aeon

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alter Aeon

The only independent references given are a directory entry and review from a single source, the online magazine Audyssey, which I'm not convinced passes WP:Reliable sources guidelines. Only 171 ghits, which seem to be all directory entries or user-submitted reviews. I suggest deletion on the grounds of WP:Notability. Marasmusine (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MUD's by there nature aren't a big deal...but have a place in modern media. Article should stay and be allowed to develop. Operating (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first sentence. This is why we have an article on MUDs. Marasmusine (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just counted 50 or so different editors of this article. I have no reason to think those editors have edited in error, and think reliable sources will appear as and when. Assume good faith. Operating (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Where are the verifiable sources? MuZemike (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Updated references as per Marasmusine's previous edits, there's a review from 2003 that is pretty strong within the blind community. (From the accountless person that attempts to maintain this page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.17.237 (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep after addition of verifiable sources. I'm a bit confused on when the sources were added and myself !voting delete, but now it does seem to demonstrate some notability via reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a single source, [1], as you can see I'm not sure if it qualifies for WP:RS. Marasmusine (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources. Why are there little marijuana buds at the bottom of the screenshot? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've ever noticed that before. I'll go find a different image. (From the accountless person that attempts to maintain this page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.17.237 (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It's pretty funny though. The caption is "A player's perspective". Interesting game. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I won't be able to upload anything until I hit autoconfirm status. I'll try for a new screenshot when I can. Flying hazard (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the original author of the Alter Aeon page. I wrote it up because I felt it was a significant MUD within the mudding community. historically and culturally. particularly because of its custom code base and longevity. dentinmud is an original code base just like merc, tiny, circle, or duki. It has been in existence for over 10 years, when 90% of MUDs die out within the first 1 to 5. After reviewing many other wiki pages for online games, I have come to believe that a likely reason that it has been particularly difficult to cite "well established" or "reliable" sources for this mud is because of its lack of commerical enterprise. Often times for-profit online games will pay in cash for third party journalists and game-reviews to review their mud and publish the findings. To my knowledge Alter Aeon does not operate in this manner, and thus in this circumstance, suffers.--Johnglenlock (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.