Talk:DragonSpires

message: This article may be notable because it relates to the history of Dragon's Eye, and by proxy their well-known MMOG Furcadia. Someone needs to make the link between them more clear, this means research I don't want to do. If DragonSpires was the source of some of the Furcadia dynamics and code, as the article implies, then it should be noted. If there is no relation, this should be shortened and merged into the article for Dragon's Eye.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.252.79 (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Also, Wired Magazine is non-notable? That's interesting! -- 12.76.222.136 (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion concern removed 

message: So we have another one after all these years, even though there are more references than the last time delection concern was removed without dissent. If no one speaks up within the next few days, I'll go ahead and take this one down. 4.154.2.191 (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the current sources, the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I'm on the fence (though leaning towards notable) but the article needs improvement no matter what. If anything, the tag will draw editors to the page who, perhaps, will know of sources we can use. Woodroar (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned someone will come along and see how long the notice has been up then completely wipe the page. If we'll keep an eye on that then I have no problem. 4.152.246.203 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The Wired source is rather trivial, not the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. The remaining sources are all either trivial, or unreliable, or not independent, and so on. Now, as I said earlier, I'm leaning towards believing the subject is notable, mostly because I think that being an early MUD should meet the criteria of a more specific notability guideline like WP:WEB. But until that happens, we still need sources that are non-trivial and reliable and independent (etc.), and a tag on the article is only going to help that. Woodroar (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Significant as in "having meaning" .  The coverage is significant regardless of what you say.  "Significant" is based on the content not how long it is.  Dream Focus 09:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The WP:GNG says "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.  Dream Focus 09:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your interpretation of "significant coverage"—WP:WEB uses the phrase "non-trivial", and I think that is the intent—but I'll let it go. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Deletion Concern 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on DragonSpires. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030120346/http://austingamedevs.org:80/dragons-eye-productions-furcadia to http://austingamedevs.org/dragons-eye-productions-furcadia
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified