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. —Kurykh 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aardwolf (game)[edit]

Tagged with a request for any independent references since February. Good claim for notability ("one of the most popular MUDs in the world") unfortunately not backed up with references per WP:N. My own search for references only turns up with things like directory entries (OMGN, for example, with no staff-written review) or trivial mentions (about.com, for example). I hope that someone can change my opinion on this, but the article does not satisfy WP:V. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. Only point of notability is its listing on top mud sites. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems cool but not notable ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 17:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Weak delete - My googling turned up what seems to be a staff written review [1]. The nr 1 listing at top mud sites of course can't be used as reference for the "most popular in the world" statement, that has to go. But that listing and all the forum/blog posts recommending it I just saw in google also tell me it at least is more notable than many other MUDs. Also its age makes it somehow seem notable to me, it's been running over 10 years. I don't know anything about MUDs, so if someone tells me that there's 100ds or 1000ds of MUDs running that long, my keep vote is really weak. --Allefant 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just looks like the promo text provided by the submitter :/ Marašmusïne_Talk 21:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, probably that's what they do on that site, just copy the promo texts. Then I trust you know a lot more about MUDs and which ones are notable and changed my vote. --Allefant 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the claims it makes are true then it's a pity, but with no references to back them up it has to go. Miremare 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've known about this game for probably close to nine years (in fact it was not only my first experience with telnet, but it also was the first mud I ever played). And while I am not sure how popular it is now, I can say that it was still very big back around 1999. from what I can recall, most of the information seems to be accurate, but with the 'original research' craze going around the wiki, it is possible that my verifying any information would be counted as original reasearch and only serve to drive another nail into this article's coffin. But even so, a game that has lasted over ten years (on telnet none the less) deserves SOME form of article. vanis314 04:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used to play it while it was still "Sleeping Aardvark", so I can personally confirm its longevity. But like you say, these things count for nothing, WP:Reliable sources and all that. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:35, 24 July 2007 (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.