Deletion of Furcadia (2nd nomination)

Comment: that I'm a little confused as to where to leave. I have to say, I didn't see one guideline or policy brought up in that entire nomination. At a glance, the article looks okay, but if it's missing notable information that can be verified by reliable sources, add it. If the subject is non-notable, perhaps that should have been mentioned somewhere in the nomination. Even if everything the nominator said is true, I'm inclined to say, assuming the subject is notable, '''keep''' per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: obvious bad-faith nomination. I call bullshit on the image links. I also sense |sock puppetry, as the user's 10th edit is the AFD nom
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK)

Comment: I disagree with the nominator, and think that they are going for a straw man argument; I find no evidence that they're pro pedophilia or anything, nor do I think they're trying to mislead people into being a "safe" site. Aren't adult sites usually plastered with warnings out the wazoo? The article makes it pretty clear that it's an adult MMO as well, and obviously it can't say what the users believe because that'd run afoul of . With that in mind, though, do they ''really'' meet notability? Every freaking source is primary
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)