Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FrostMUD

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the policy-based problems raised by the others. Sandstein 06:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FrostMUD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Couldn't find any reliable sources to support this article. Singularity42 (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please explain what is your criteria for a "non" reliable surce.DeeCeeVee (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are found at WP:RS. Singularity42 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All references are from frostmud.com. A better reference would be to have an external reference such as a magazine or newspaper. Softdevusa (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad, but websites can't be reliable sources about themselves. i kan reed (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to make this article more fitting for wikipedia, however I need help in doing so. The site is in fact real, go to it and see. It is indisputable that it exists. If I cannot reference the site itself, where do you propose I gather this information from? Axanon 13:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axanon (talk • contribs)

The issue is not that it exists (see WP:ITEXISTS). The issue is whether this is notable, as per WP:COMPANY or WP:WEB. To demonstrate notability, you generally need non-trivial coverage by multiple, third-party reliable sources. I looked myself before proposing, and then nominating this article for deletion, but I could not find any. Singularity42 (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability - that is, coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject - can be provided. Robofish (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.