[Aelitan]

I was one of those who were blocked/banned from Wikipedia for trying to edit the article. I was banned by Black Kite (like every other person who was banned for working on this article) after editing once, and undoing edits of the person who put the article up for deletion, Mendaliv.

What is frustrating and annoying to me, is that Cambios gets slapped down partly for conflict of interest. Yet Mendaliv, who on his own userpage, claims to have played Threshold at one point or another. I fail to see how that cannot be a conflict of interest, him being a former player(possibly) and not only dissecting the original article from the quantity and quality of information down to the small thing that it is now, but also putting it up for deletion.

Others that irk me, are people like Greg Douglas, who wrote an extremely thoughtful and well put post, have their things removed and declared as being meat/sockpuppets. Below is a copy of the post written by Mr. Douglas, which Black Kite so thoughtfully deleted when he was banning both Kalimina and Greg Douglas.
NOTABILITY:
, , , , , and either are or were at some time major, reliable sources for online gaming news, reviews, and information. The fact that some of them no longer exist or are not as famous as they once were does not eliminate the fact that they are . They definitely establish . Regarding "Reliable", specifically states: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." This means printed or online media, even if they are out of print or are now offline are still reliable sources.
The page also states (): "Notability is not temporary: If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic."
1) The numerous sources already listed clearly establish that Threshold RPG was AT LEAST notable at one time, if not still notable. The sources themselves were notable at one time (and some are still notable) as well. Computer Games Magazine finally got itself back online, and one of their of Threshold is now back as well.
2) Threshold already met the notability standard a few years ago when a request for deletion was made and rejected. It does not have to continually meet this standard every few years when someone decides to go on a crusade against MUDs in general or Threshold specifically.
3) Threshold is certainly one of the most significant games in the history of MUDs. That is established by the multitude of references and awards from within that industry. That has been established very clearly with citations to countless MUD/MMO related web sites and print media. It has won numerous awards, it is over 12 years old, and it is possibly the only commercial enforced RP MUD/MMO ever. If Threshold doesn't meet , then virtually the entire MUD hobby is not either. It would be patently absurd to argue the MUD hobby in its entirety is not notable. There was a time when MUDs were bigger than the WWW. There was time when MUDs were one of the driving forces behind the popularity of Linux and the evolution of open source software.
NOTABILITY IS *NOT* THE CONTROLLING ISSUE FOR DELETION:
Notability is sometimes a factor, but it is definitely not the only or most important factor when examining whether an article should be deleted. There are significant arguments throughout Wikipedia policy that non-notability should not be cause for deleting an article:

1) Notability is not specifically stated in the .
2)
Valid content is deleted: The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). Further, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may garner more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information.
That last point is especially compelling here. The "transitory world of the internet" has indeed rendered some of the sources "irreproducable." Deleting the Threshold entry just contributes to that tragedy.
3)
Obscure content isn't harmful: Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.
For these reasons, the reasons already stated by numerous other people here, and many additional reasons I have not gone into (I've written a book already), the Threshold entry should be KEPT. () 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)