[Milawe]

I don't really know how to answer this. The people originally engaged in the edit warring were declaring them "throw-away" mentions, though some of the articles were newspaper articles that were full articles on Threshold. Granted, it was not the New York Times, but it's still a substantial article. A few of the ones removed were also ones that were lists, but I see those all over the place for movies and games. They also removed Threshold's TMC review, which was unsolicited and written by a TMC staff member. It was actually the second review that was written on Threshold from TMC. I'm not sure where the first one is anymore. TMS was not only thrown out as a source that Threshold was notable in the mudding community, but it was removed from the actual MUDs article to try to make this point.

I don't know what exactly is going on in Wikipedia except that some editors seem to think it's okay to do everything based on their own judgment and not research. For example, did you know that there was a discussion to remove mention of IRE on the MUDs article? You may not care about personally because, like Threshold, IRE probably gets very little out of being mentioned on Wikipedia, but looking at the entry objectively, how could IRE NOT be included in an article on MUDs and MUD history? I even went to look up a source for IRE and posted it so that it could be used. Even if it is a passing mention, the fact that IRE was mentioned along with Sony is a telling thing, in my opinion.

In the end, that may be the problem with the whole issue. Very much of this is opinion. Whose opinion counts more, then? And that may be the question. I think, though, the only reason that this issue HAS garnered this much attention is because Threshold might very possibly BE notable. You can't force people to pick up a story that doesn't mean anything to them, just as you can't force people to pick up a cause they don't have interest in. I know that I would pitch an absolute fit if someone tried to remove Achaea by claiming that muds in general aren't noticeable, but I might not be as moved to do act for Solace. (No offense to Solace.)

Ultimately, you might be seeing Wikipedia as one entity that is trying to do some "good", but in reality, two people, one of which just happened to be an admin, was making the decisions for the article before it was put up for an AfD by one of those two people.

I'd like to agree with you except that I saw TMS removed from the MUDs article in general. I think if enough administrations and editors got together, it's possible to remove just about anything from Wikipedia. I read about a case where one editor removed (and kept off) the reports of an author's death because it could not be "verified". I'm not sure if his death ever got back on there, but there sure a lot of jokes flying around about it.

I've already been assured that re-listing Threshold after it's written won't be a problem assuming the deletion doesn't get overturned. Maybe it'll face an AfD again, but at least they'll have to unlist us with about 10-15 citations this time, which will probably make it one of the best cited and researched mud articles on Wikipedia. I still think its days will be numbered, but then again, I think Wikipedia's days are numbered as well.