Deletion of Arctic MUD (2nd nomination)

Comment: references given do not support the general notability guideline.  No problem with recreation should notability/significant coverage be proven via |''reliable'' print/web sources.  The first source, Internet Games Directory, is summarized as ''"This book includes descriptions of Web sites where readers can find the hottest online real-time games, in addition to how-to and strategy guides, non-real-time, proprietary, e-mail and listserv games"'' at http://www.amazon.com/Internet-Games-Directory-Lycos-Insites/dp/0789710552/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5 amazon.com, which sounds more like a list, |verifying it exists, but significant coverage is definitely dubious.  Internet After Hours does not provide significant coverage, as evidenced by the prose. Sources 4 and 5 are identical in their content, and again only lists the MUD.  If it went further on it being one of the oldest I'd say it could help establish notability, but it's just a list, and the reliability of the source is questionable anyway.  The remaining source is a FAQ, which most definitely wouldn't provide significant coverage. Print sources may exist, and I would recommend those wanting to keep the article visit their local library and bookstores to find significant coverage in books, which may be more likely.  Should the article be deleted, those sources would be very useful should someone choose to |request it to be undeleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:UNDELETE)

Comment: from article creator. I created this a number of years ago as a newish editor and didn't include any indicators of notability. It was deleted. At the time I believe Arctic MUD was ranked in the top 10 MUDs by notable MUD site The MUD Connector and also Top MUD Sites (which both actively vet entries). Arctic had a short paragraph written about it on the official Dragonlance Nexus (which sadly seems to be a broken link now) and was referenced on the official Dragonlance movie site, which back in those days was together sufficient evidence of notability for the admin that deleted the original version to allow me to recreate it. As for now...it's a tricky one. The piece on the Nexus is gone and Arctic's rankings have changed. However as |notability is not temporary I'd still say '''Keep'''. It's a shame we can't find more published references, but it's difficult with something this old and in a genre that is dying out so is not featured in modern publications that are readily available online. I have a vague memory of seeing Arctic discussed in a 1990s gaming publication, but I have no clue as to which one or when, so that doesn't help. I did note that in recent years Arctic was one of the 10 "featured" MUDs in Zuggsoft's zMUD client. Not sure whether that is significant or not. Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: God, y'know, |screw all this courtroom drama about whether the evidence is admissible since it's tainted by Usenet cooties: the fact is that Arctic MUD developers publicly contributed a popular and useful socket code patch that corrected a common problem in DikuMUDs, anybody can check this by looking at the rec.games.mud.diku FAQ on faqs.org, there's no reason to suspect any chicanery in any of this, and it's not like this is some kind of crank assertion that we must have Authority From On High to call upon in order to let it in the door.  Further, I assert that this fact is a meaningful indicator toward notability; I personally think that that plus the three passing mentions plus the longevity factor add up to enough notability to work with.  If not, whatever, I'm just sick of the cooties arguments. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)