3) The reaction was immediate and significant. Many people showed up to vote KEEP and attest to the notability of Threshold. The deletionists' main argument was that Threshold was not notable enough for Wikipedia - an utterly absurd argument. Threshold has been in operation for almost 13 years, is (to my knowledge) the only role play enforced game EVER commercially available, and is especially unique in areas of in-game politics, law, and religion. Recognized experts in the field quickly posted about the issue on their blogs, attesting to the notability of Threshold. Among these experts were Dr. Richard Bartle (creator of MUD1 - the first MUD/MMO ever and the most recognized expert in the field) and Raph Koster (a developer on LegendMUD, Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies, and more).
4) As people showed up to vote KEEP, they were frequently branded "sockpuppets", banned, and their comments stricken from the discussion. Amazing, huh? When some of those users went to a MUD web site (Top Mud Sites) to discuss their banning, Wikipedia admins showed up, accused the people there of "canvassing" (trying to rally and influence people to vote), and insulted them repeatedly. A user who most people believe was WA made the following comment: "If you had been polite and asked for help instead of being abusive, your article might not be in trouble now. Plus, running home to your favorite forums and beating the war drum is a particularly lame response. If you'd taken the effort to read Wikipedia's policies as you require others to read Threshold's, you would not be in this situation."
So the key to an article not being deleted is apparently kissing up to the insiders, and it is "lame" to discuss your plight anywhere on the internet after you get banned. Also, note the final comment. How does this person, who accused everyone else of Conflict of Interest, know anything about Threshold's rules? You guessed it... Turns out WA was a formerly banned player of Threshold. He played the game underage almost 10 years ago. My, that is a long time to hold a grudge. One has to wonder how someone could muster the gall to label a game "non-notable" when it is still around 10 years after you played it as a teenager. But I digress...
5) In a move that can only be called INSANE, the deletionists argued that the articles and declarations from these experts lent notability to Wikipedia, not Threshold, since Dr. Bartle and Mr. Koster were making their points in the context of the ongoing deletion attempt. Furthermore, the deletionists accused them of being puppets of "canvassing", and that I somehow cajoled them into making their statements. These are reputable figures in the industry who care deeply about their reputations. They do not blithely go about acknowledging the notability of any game unless it is something they truly believe. The accusations were not only ridiculous, but incredibly insulting.
6) Those they did not ban often suffered other attacks. The owner of Top Mud Sites participated in the discussion (voting KEEP). Soon after his vote, the links to his site in the general MUD entry were deleted. When he added it back, it was removed again. Retaliatory editing is supposed to be against the rules.
7) The AfD ended up being one of the largest, if not THE largest, in the history of Wikipedia. That fact alone should be a hint about Threshold's notability. Four days into the five day AfD, the tally was 57% voting KEEP, and 43% voting DELETE. Wikipedia policy requires that a CONSENSUS TO DELETE must be reached, or else the article is kept. Momentum was continuing to build for the KEEP side - particularly as negative media attention piled onto Wikipedia for the abusiveness of its administrators, and the absurdity of the deletion attempt itself.
Next: Continue to page 3 to find out the result of the AfD and what ensued following its closure.
