[Kleothera]

OK. Lets put the question this way, Neurolysis (or one of the other wikipedia people reading this), what WOULD be a reference that actually covers MUDs and MUDing in general that you would accept?

This is keeping in mind that most MUDs are NOT reviewed commercially, do not have books written about them and do not get mentioned in the "mainstream" media, but still obviously exist and very clearly generate a lot of passion. This discussion seems to have boiled down to finding a single reference that Wikipedia finds to be up to its standard to prove that Threshold is noteworthy. Therefore, if all the references produced do not meet the standard of proof for the wikipedia (fair enough) what WOULD be a definitive authoritative notable EXISTING source related to MUDing that you would accept?

Threshold exists. It attracts thousands of players. It has been clearly recognized as important (if not noteworthy) by experts in the profession. Its the elephant in the room. Since you have been helpful and have posted several times during the day, could you help the MUD community to NOT turn this debate over a single article of average (or below) quality into a crusade over the noteworthiness of all MUDs in general, which is exactly what is happening when one reads all the reasons for rejection of all the bits of evidence presented. I know the burden of proof is on the game, but it would sure as hell help us bystanders not get all worked up if it went back to being what it is- a debate over a single article, not a question of the reliability and validity of all MUD references.

So what WOULD be a hypothetical MUD reference that the Wikipedia would find acceptable? That way the people from Theshold can perhaps go back to editing the article and we can all go back to our own MUDs.

As stated previously, I have no affiliation with Threshold- past, present or future.