Deletion of Virtual Family Kingdom

Comment: per  and , as mentioned above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:NN)

Comment: Too many problems with this article, as witness the tags on the article's page.  Added to those are the problems cited above, particularly   and .  I don't like to rain on anyone's parade, but there are too many issues here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:V)

Comment: unless |independent reliable sources can be provided to |demonstrate |notability. There has been one independent source added to the article, http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2008/04/homemade-virtua.html here, since it was tagged for {{tl|Primary Sources}}, but it isn't enough to verify notability. It's difficult to search this term, as it brings up a number of unrelated pages, but I've given it a shot and come up with a lot of unusable sources. Mind you, I do come up with a ''lot''. Notability is distinct from fame or popularity, but it does underscore the possibility that even if the unreleased game does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion, the released game will. Any close of this as deletion should, of course, not prejudice against re-creation of the article with sufficient sources to verify
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:WEB)

Comment: I appreciate that the players of the defunct game wish to keep their fun going; as a player in failed MMORPGS, I wish them well.  What they haven't established, however, is how this new game passes ,  and  for a Wikipedia article.  As far as I can see, the alleged "bias" of the nom equates to the nom citing correct deletion grounds under policy.  The easiest way to save this article is to provide multiple |independent, third-party, reliable sources about this subject; newspaper or magazine articles about it will suffice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:WEB||WP:RS)