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 to LPMud. There is no consensus on what content can be merged, but the history of this article is still accessible after it is redirected. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NannyMUD[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Going by the PDF available on Google Scholar, Language Learning and MUDs: an Overview uses it extensively as an example of how to interact with a MUD, but I'm not sure that's enough to establish notability. It doesn't actually describe the history of the MUD or anything specific like that. There are a few entries in lists of MUDs archived in Google Books, but that's about as trivial as you can get. Besides that, I don't see anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see a redirect to LPMud, but I'm a little worried that a merge would simply shift this poorly-sourced content to another article. If the official website says it was founded in 1990, I guess that's good enough for me, but to claim that it's one of the longest running online games ever would require secondary sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the difficulty now, thanks. I agree--the sources I know don't make that claim , so we could not merge that. I was just thinking of basic facts like when it was founded and by who. But in the interest of consensus, I'd be OK with a redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is really revolting, but for whatever reason the people who were writing about MUDs back when MUDs were something people wrote about seem to have completely skipped by this definitely significant MUD. It's legitimately a loss to Wikipedia to delete this article but I don't see any standards-consistent way around it. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to LPMud, where it is mentioned. This should be notable, but it falls through the cracks of WP's notability thresholds. Nevertheless, NinjaRobotPirate's noted RS along with copious primary sources provides verifiability of basic facts about the MUD. As an example of a long-running LPMud, that article would be a natural merge target. I suggest that the lead and Characteristics section seem verifiable from the Javnost and Asensio sources and could be merged to LPMud without creating an undue balance. --Mark viking (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NannyMUD website is not a good source for exceptional claims about the significance of its longevity. The MUD is mentioned as one in a list—I don't see what there is to merge unless you're starting a section or list of LPMuds. If it's an easy merge, you can also just do it, and we'd have to redirect the article to preserve attribution. czar 20:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do the merge if that become the consensus. But doing so before the AfD is closed is bad form, as it is considered forcing the outcome, per WP:EDITATAFD --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point of AfD is to find consensus (hopefully swiftly)—if you have a means to use the content for good, I doubt anyone would take umbrage [Edit: Though I'll add that I personally don't see any secondary source content worth merging.] czar 01:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 9 May 2016 (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.