It seems that all you have to do to put up potentially bogus information on Wikipedia is to put it into a book, self-publish it with an ISBN, and add the ISBN reference to Wikipedia. That apparently makes the information very notable and awesome, whereas years upon years of discussion and activity in the community, on Usenet, on forums, etc., is absolutely worthless.
I think that they have somewhat deluded notions of their own grandeur. A popular encyclopedia, in the sense of of the people, is supposed to contain popular information – and the nature of some of that information is such that it only exists in Usenet posts and so forth. Much research has been done by analyzing private letters between correspondents; is that useless too?
Well, anyhow, I guess the TLDR version is that this is just plain stupid.
Don't get me wrong. I think it's great to capture these articles and mirror them on a safe site. I hadn't looked to see if it was on Mudpedia, so some might view this as an opportunity to capture the latest changes before it's gone.
Want to nominate them for deletion and see what happens? ;)
Not really. I figure if someone cares enough to write an article about something, why should I rain on their party. Although I had wickedly considered nominating for deletion articles started and maintained by those who regularly nominate articles for deletion.
Wikipedia has always had a certain segment of users that seem to be hellbent on deleting things they feel don't belong in the site. Some of them are good intentioned, some aren't. However, if the page existed more than six months .. ish .. you can still get it from the Wayback Machine, if the actual content of the page was important to you.