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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nanvaent[edit]

Nanvaent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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 03:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to LPMud as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine brings up zero results. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've made a request for Audyssey Magazine to be considered for reliability purposes at WT:VG/RS; if it were held to be reliable that may affect the outcome of this discussion, as Nanvaent has been reviewed there. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audyssey has zero hallmarks of reliability (reputation for fact-checking, editor pedigree) so there is no chance that it would be considered a reliable source. Going to need much more than one review, too... czar 21:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I interest you in registering that opinion on Audyssey at WT:VG/RS? Nobody else has commented. It wouldn't be one review, it'd most likely be one review and the Independent cite, which isn't amazing but maybe passable. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to LPMud (with no deletion) where it is mentioned. The game has an entry in the book Internet Virtual Worlds Quick Tour, that looks like an RS and it is listed in many of the main MUD directories, e.g., the MUDStats entry. This is an old enough game that I could believe that there are other paper sources out there not yet indexed by Google. Hence, basic information is verifiable, but it doesn't quite make it to the notability threshold. Redirecting to the more general article seems the best alternative at the moment, per WP:ATD, with keeping the article history for future source material per WP:PRESERVE. There is nothing harmful in the prose and thus no reason to delete the article history. --Mark viking (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking, "please keep the ordering of this list as: Genesis LPMud first, other MUDs alphabetized; do not add MUDs that do not have articles about them, they will be removed" This is the direct quote of the comment that precedes that list of games at LPMud. I don't see why we would use it as a redirect target. czar 16:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping a particular ordering sounds fine to me, but asserting that notability is required just to be mentioned in an article has no basis in policy; verifiability is all that is required. It was an assertion that Chaos5023 put in the article about 5 years ago, but there was no discussion about it on the talk page. I have thus removed the notability recommendation from the comment. I will note that WP:PRESERVE is a policy, and a redirect of this topic to a mention in a more general article is in perfect harmony with that policy. Deleting verifiable material because it fails a mere notability guideline, as you propose here, is in violation of WP:PRESERVE. --Mark viking (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the vague waves to capital letters, that section is about improving articles and the closest it gets to agreeing with your suggestion is in merging content where it can be useful. But we're not talking about merging useful content—we're talking about incidental redirects. Is the plan to make a list of every LPMud that has ever been mentioned in a source of any reliability? Didn't we just do the opposite in another AfD? I think that was the point of Chaos's comment five years ago (which, regardless how you feel is warranted today, had five years of consensus through editing, if not explicit talk page consensus). czar 18:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Czar is doubtless correct that Audyssey will not be deemed reliable; notability would be debatable even with that citation registering in support, and without it the GNG is clearly not met. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:14, 12 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.