I was checking through the articles I had created, and it seems that another one was deleted. The article in question was one of the talkers, called Resort.

Deletion log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Resort_(talker)

So let me get this straight: this dickhead Edgar181 insists that it makes no claims of notoriety. Sorry, but most popular talker ever is a claim of notoriety. If you don't think that that is sufficiently notable, then go ahead and delete all of the articles listed on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_talkers

It also looks pretty stupid, because Resort is listed elsewhere.

Not to worry, because its got a little subset here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foothills_%28talker%29#Resort

Now, we saw previously that the most popular MUD in history, with 500 users per day for 10 years straight, Aardwolf, managed to get deleted on an AFD because only 4 people voted, and none of them knew what a MUD was or were prepared to research anything. This time we have a talker which had 400 users per day for years, but nowadays only gets 20-40, but has been for the past 15 years in the top 5 most popular. And yet this dickhead says that it makes no claim of notoriety!

I mean, in context, obviously you're not going to see this article in Britannica, so by that standard perhaps its fair enough to delete it. But compared to everything else, and even compared to the other articles on less notable talkers, seriously why the fuck did this guy think that it warranted not just being nominated for deletion - but being speedy deleted! I mean seriously!

It had changed, an IP dumped an essay in there over the top of your article - I'll take it up with the deleting admin and point out that a previous version wasn't a speedy candidate.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edg...Speedy_deletion

Oh I see what happened. Someone who was heavily involved in the site didn't think that the Wikipedia article was promotional enough so they added in their own account. If it can be verified that that is what the owner says, it has a place there, as an external link. It says that the external link is available from within the talker, but that's not much help really. It could still perhaps be incorporated somehow.

By the way, any thoughts on why Aardwolf MUD was deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Aardwolf_(game)

Don't ask me why it got renamed to Aardwolf (game). That one is the number 1 most popular MUD in history, by miles. I know it failed at AFD, but that was only because people who were voting weren't knowledgeable enough of the subject, and perhaps because they were unwilling to write it properly. I would have rescued it, but of course they don't let me edit.

Such things are ridiculous really. I mean there's 60 MUD articles on Wikipedia, yet they delete the most notable of the lot of them.

Yeah thats why the AfD failed - noone to argue for it. Link if you didnt have it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...wolf_%28game%29

Yes, and there was a link in the article, as quoted there, that proved that it was currently, as of today, the most popular mud in the world.

The deleting admin recified his mistake with the first article.

Yeah it is good that that happened. However, I wouldn't mind so much if Resort (talker) was deleted on an AFD. I mean there is an argument that all of those talkers, or at least most of them, are too small to warrant having their own separate articles. However, MUDs it has been established are far more popular and far more well known than talkers, and Aardwolf is far more notable than any of the other 60+ MUDs with their own articles on Wikipedia. Just because the article wasn't written well enough for their liking, and just because the people voting on the AFD chose not to investigate things properly doesn't mean that it should be deleted.

I mean its kind of like deciding that some hardly heard of musician like The Superjesus is worthy of an article, yet deciding to delete an article on The Rolling Stones. That's the kind of comparison that we are talking about here.

The Superjesus weren't so bad, though. Sort of like Ash or the Kaiser Chiefs, but, uh... not as good. Still, I'd much rather see them delete the article on the Stones!

Well, that's the notability difference between Aardwolf and most of the other 60 muds Category:MU%2A_games that have articles on Wikipedia. Aardwolf is like Rolling Stones, while muds like Realms_of_Despair are more like Superjesus.

Don't pretend you know who Superjesus is, unless you're in Australia, and even then its unlikely you know. They had no top 20 singles, and really its a major stretch to give them a Wikipedia entry, even by Wikipedia's own loose standards of notoriety.

But... they're on iTunes and everything! Listeners also bought Dogs Die in Hot Cars, Snow Patrol, and The Killers! What's more, their name evokes such vaunted contemporaries as Supergrass, Superchunk, Supersonic, Super Furry Animals, The Supermen Lovers, the Supertones, and of course MC 900-ft. Jesus.

Wasn't Gravity in the hottest 100?

Surely the decisive question is whether they have any songs on JzG's iPod.

Probably.

Maybe they are borderline notable, but Superjesus (or Kaiser Chiefs, or Ash) are nowhere near as notable as The Rolling Stones, which is my point there. You wouldn't compare the two. You might compare Britney Spears to The Rolling Stones, but you wouldn't even consider talking about Superjesus.

I mean when Superjesus toured here, they had 2 bodyguards, and people could just walk up to them and chat. They went in to a bar and talked to people, and you could dance with them, sit with them, and everything. Rolling Stones doesn't do that. Rolling Stones would get mobbed. There's a different level of notoriety there.

A MUD which is the number 1 of all time, and still the number 1 currently doesn't compare with ones that have a handful of people on them, even if they may have done something that maybe passes Wikipedia's rather low standards for inclusion.

I trust that people can see the issue there.

Oh I see your point, just quibling with the details.