Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FurryMUCK

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 speedy keep. Krimpet 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FurryMUCK

FurryMUCK (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject in question isn't notable. Delete GreenJoe 00:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong speedy keep. Like heck it's not notable. It passes WP:RS and WP:V with flying colors. I smell a WP:POINT here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject looks notable enough, Google shows 39,000+ hits from many different websites. Useight 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. FurryMuck is notable (and the article should be longer). The proposal to delete gives no justification for this action. There are doubtless many mucks that aren't notable; FurryMuck is not one of them. Wyvern 02:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on notability through those articles Corpx 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. You know, the article could use some tidying up - but the subject is certainly Notable. ZZ 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It passes WP:RS. It has definitely been covered independently. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per all above. @pple 04:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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.