Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMAUG (2nd nomination)

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.  JGHowes  ^talk 17:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMAUG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Was a soft delete, but nothing has changed in this incarnation of the article. No evidence of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A quick note, the article was brought back by the project's owner, self-disclosed COI. -- ferret (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that further COI editing has occurred since the AFD began. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a web-server. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to leave a valid policy backed argument for deletion. Plenty of web servers are notable. Nor is this even a web server. -- ferret (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is notable within its domain -- MUD servers and is notable by its historical context within the genre. --Thoric (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm sure you know, if you're calling it notable, you'll have to demonstrate that it meets one of our notability criteria. See WP:GNG and/or one of the subject-specific guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and salt Salt is due to COI editing and apparent meatpuppetry. I've searched quite a bit this morning, including through WP:VG/S's source lists and just open searches, book searches, etc. I can find little to nothing that focuses directly on SMAUG, the server. It is almost always mentioned in passing as the server behind Realms of Despair. As such, redirect it to Realms of Despair and merge the basic lead details as necessary. The feature list can be dropped out. Also, courtsey ping to last AFD nom, Lee Vilenski. -- ferret (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ferret: Just for clarification, to what article would you propose to merge this? BD2412 T 01:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: I was suggesting Realms of Despair but failed to wikilink it. While Czar may be correct that Realms of Despair has its own unsurmountable issues, this is the SMAUG AFD, not the Realms of Despair AFD. One thing at a time, if you will. -- ferret (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems reasonable. If Realms of Despair is not itself independently notable, I expect that both articles can be merged to something a bit farther up the ladder on the history of MUDs, generally. BD2412 T 01:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • And then the redirect would be deleted when no reliable source gives us a sentence worth mentioning SMAUG in one of those parent articles? czar 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The standard for including a line about a topic in an article is, of course, substantially lower than the standard for having a separate article on that topic. Koster's timeline will suffice for that. BD2412 T 17:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated merge target, from the Realms of Despair AFD: Merge up to DikuMUD as part of a dual merger with Realms of Despair, similar to how Merc (MUD) was. I'm fine with a Delete result though, as GNG isn't going to be met. I believe we can manage a paragraph at DikuMUD though on the topic of SMAUG/ROD. @BD2412: Courtesy ping, not sure if you meant to leave a !Vote or not. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - I still don't see how this is any more notable than the last time I nominated this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Realms of Despair is not a good merge target as that topic has similar sourcing issues. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 08:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:IAR to preserve a part of the internet's history that will never be covered in reliable sources to the level editors desire. An insignificant river that no one ever asked for can have an article because it appears on some database but the backbone of a "popular" MUD gets failed for a notability standard that is likely impossible for any niche but useful/relevant/interesting software to meet. Slywriter (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Our bar for keeping MUD articles is already super low and the Internet loves writing about niche software, so that part doesn't ring true. The question is, if this is important, where is its reliable source coverage? It's fine to cover this within an existing topic, theoretically, based on how it's covered in sourcing, but not seeing a case for that either. czar 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how with such a "low" bar, that you consider Realms of Despair and/or SMAUG non-notable when over 5% of all MUDs are using SMAUG code. The public release of the SMAUG source code was considered to be one of the "significant events for the development of virtual worlds", and has had hundreds of thousands of downloads. --Thoric (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoric, Do you have a source for that significant events quote? If something that meets Wikipedia's standards says that you might change some minds here. MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, it comes from Raph Koster's Online World Timeline --Thoric (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You consider this "significant in depth" coverage? A single sentence saying "it was released"? -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Most MUDs are not notable because they lack sufficient sourcing from reliable publications. This is one of them. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 05:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The entry of SMAUG in the timeline of MUD games I believe is notable. The timeline stretches back to 1962. Could any of the people who are unhappy with this article please suggest improvements? Reduce the features list? Add a paragraph on where SMAUG fits in the constellation of MUD games? The combination of sufficient notability and an improved article should result in a KEEP and a protection from further deletion proposals, for a while, at least. I have read the first deletion and it was not sufficiently considered. So no weight should be given to this being a second nomination. Mediation4u ^(chat) _{nb: editing is fun} 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you looking for in improvements like 'reducing the features list', 'add a paragraph', etc? AFD is not cleanup. We're only here to evaluate WP:N, and the article state is not in question. The timeline, while interesting for placement over the decades, does not provide any significant coverage. In fact, it doesn't even provide more than a single sentence saying literally "it was released". The timeline at best could be used to source the release year of the server, and provides nothing to WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're asking for article cleanup, then an AFD discussion isn't the place to put it. What can even be improved here? It doesn't establish any notability and the only sources are passing mentions. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ferret. I see your point. Searching for notability in sources which would be 16 years old is, indeed, going to be tricky. Well done for merging some of the content to the other article. It is good that the best content is not lost. I fear that I have never seen a deletion discussion turn around. Human nature is to look for the negative in Wikipedia articles, and pile on with the critics. So I'll add a Merge and redirect vote. Many thanks for saving some of the content from falling into the abyss. How apt that it has fallen into the realms of despair. Mediation4u ^(chat) _{nb: editing is fun} 01:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it fails the WP:GNG, and none of these keep arguments even begin to formulate a valid counterpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Realms of Despair and add a redirect from SMAUG, combining them into a stronger (and better sourced) article. KaVir (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realms of Despair czar 07:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability standards; does not satisfy WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:GNG concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:IAR to preserve a part of the internet's history as well... Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that even mean? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 18:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to DikuMUD, per the existence of a mention-worthy source and WP:ATD. BD2412 T 18:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Realms of Despair (or to DikuMUD if that also gets merged away). -gtrmp (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've merged some details into DikuMUD already, as WP:V can be met for the basic facts. See this diff. -- ferret (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If we can't say anything about this apart from "SMAUG was derived from DikuMUD," what value does such a statement provide to our readers? If sources do not discuss anything about the impact of being derived from DikuMUD, why would we even mention it? It reads like that sentence is shoehorned in to placate participants in this AfD but there is no textual basis for its inclusion. czar 05:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMAUG, was released nearly 24 years ago, and has been the basis of hundreds of other MUDs over the years, and also spawned several derivative code bases (AFKMUD, SERF, SmaugWiz, SmaugFUSS, SWR, SWR2, SWRFuss, etc), which also went on to support many MUDs still active today. As far as what it had specifically contributed to the DikuMUD -> Merc lineage, this is of course not unknown, but would have to be sourced to the source code itself, which is public and open, and should be citable. Source code does not lie, and is unbiased. If the feature can be found within the source code, then that should be an acceptable source. Thus, I mention these few things to be found in the SMAUG source code, to distinct it from it's parent, Merc2.1, and its grandparent, DikuMUD: complete online creation for every single feature including even spells -- magic spells could be created and edited in game, repairable equipment, a clan system, a PK system (player killing), object grouping, object and equipment layering, corpse saving (across crashed and reboots), pet saving, projectiles, mounts, unlimited online message and bulletin boards, etc, etc, too many to list, but available in summary here https://www.smaug.org/features.html, and yes, I know that link can't be a citation, but the original released source code should be citable. The SMAUG code introduced a lot of features not available in other public code bases. There is no contest to this, and it shouldn't have to be published in a half dozen books when the source code is there for all to see. --Thoric (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the source code of hundreds of MUDs is exactly the type of original research we do not allow from WP editors. All we need to cite your above claim is a single reliable, independent source that says so. If the claim is noteworthy, it should not be hard to find one such source that says so. czar 21:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about comparing the source code of hundreds of MUDs, just being able to cite the source code for existence of a feature. If DikuMUD and Merc's feature sets are already established, then to cite the SMAUG source code as the source for it having feature X, Y, and Z is not original research. SMAUG's source code is freely available. There are quite a number of articles for open source projects, such as GIMP, and oh look, nearly half of the citations are from the gimp.org website... --Thoric (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing any source code is original research. And you're right, GIMP is in bad shape. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We paraphrase reliable, secondary sources. Your claims require the same standard of support. czar 21:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I never said compare. For certain things, citing the primary source is acceptable -- books, songs, paintings, and why not source code? The requirement of secondary sources only is more important for things that are POV. If we start looking at open source projects, then you've got a lot of work ahead of you, as most of them use primary source citations... GNU_Compiler_Collection --Thoric (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you're getting that. Secondary sources are required, not optional... We only use primary sources in extremely limited circumstances, not for original claims and not for the bulk of an article. Yes, open source projects tend to be overgrown with primary sources on Wikipedia. You're welcome to contribute to them. czar 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the first citation not acceptable for this? The MUD FAQs were regularly published to the Usenet mud groups for years, and were at the time the primary trusted source of information: https://www.mudconnect.com/mudfaq/mudfaq-p4.html#smaug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:316:39B7:3DB9:2484:55E5:7B6 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can post to Usenet. It's self-published (by non-experts, yes?) with no process for fact-checking or history of editorial pedigree. It's no different from me spinning up a page on a wiki and calling it an FAQ. Read about our reliable source policy for more. czar 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to DikuMUD as has been done. There's just enough name dropping + slightly more details I can find in books and academic research to make this a search term and thus something we should document, but not for a standalone article. I think the current section on DikuMUD is reasonable for that. --Masem (t) 16:58, 13 December 2020 (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.