[the_logos]

But that's kind of the point: It's not about being notable WITHIN a hobby. It's about being notable, period (or at least that seems to be the intent. I think we all know the intent isn't exactly reflected in reality in many cases). Being a big fish in a very tiny pond isn't very notable generally speaking. It's why small-town mayors don't tend to get Wikipedia pages, for instance, I'd imagine, whereas the mayor of New York City will.

And remember that it's not about the hobby finding references. It's about individual games within the hobby finding references to prove notability. That is possible, and there are text MUDs that can meet Wikipedia's notability standards (again, regardless of whether we consider those standards fair or not, they're what we're dealing with).

Wikipedia's legitimate point here is that the player reviews on something like TMC are meaningless. It's just random people submitting reviews, and those reviews can be solicited.


Yeah, but again, it's not enough to be a big fish in a tiny pond. If there was a niche community of 3 people and 2 of them voted for one of the three, should that person have a Wikipedia page as a result? After all, 2/3rds of the community voted for him. The size of the community matters a lot in terms of overall notability. (A three person community isn't able to lend its members much notability.)

I don't think that just having active players makes you notable. If that was the case, then virtually every MUD is notable, every publication on earth read by a few hundred people is notable, etc.

Judged by online games in general, there are no text MUDs that are notable for the size of their populations.

I don't mean to sound so negative in these few posts I've made in this thread. I just think you guys are barking up the wrong tree. Putting aside the petty biases that one particular Wikipedia editor seems to have, I think I'd probably make the same decision in Wikipedia's shoes, with the information that Wikipedia has available to it.
--matt