[Samson]

The problem with Wikipedia is that they don't seem to consider anything other than "mainstream" media (network news, major print sources, etc) as a reliable source. So unless you're lucky enough to have some talking head on a network news program the people at Wikipedia actually watch, you aren't notable.

Which means that pretty much everything that was spawned on the internet, covered by the internet, and is reviewed and critiqued by the internet, means nothing to them. Even if a print source does manage to cover it.

Which is ironic, since nobody serious respects anything Wikipedia is doing academically. Schools even flat out warn you not to use it as a source.

Arctic MUD had coverage on a major internet gaming site back in the day. Even according to their own policy, if you establish notability then, it doesn't die off on you 15 years down the road. The guys pushing for AfD on Arctic are probably from the same crowd who tried to have Threshold purged.

This whole BS about notability is a farce anyway, troll random links and you'll find stupid stuff like old 70s TV shows nobody had ever heard of back then with tiny little stub articles that nobody tried to delete. Probably because an admin created them. I guarantee you most of the people targeting MUDs don't know jack about them.

As far as reliable sources, TMC and TMS are as good as that's going to get. It doesn't matter if they're just traffic aggregators, they are the two recognized sources in the field.

Nope. You'll find the sole reason any of these kids do this stuff is to score points and climb the ladder at Wikipedia. How else would they have time enough to throw policy at you left and right from the obscure corners of their website?

Their entire notion of consensus not meaning a majority opinion is also about as ludicrous as it comes. There can't be a consensus on anything without a majority opinion to guide it. What they mean is a majority opinion from only their chosen cabal.