Deletion of MapleStory

Comment: The nominator is trying to claim the article's condition is a reason to delete it. Notability? The game has 50 million users (referenced twice in the article, find it yourself), has almost 2 million Google hits, and is supported by MTV http://www.gameshout.com/news/mtv_backs_free_mmorpg/article8671.htm. There are nine reliable sources http://news.google.com/news?q=MapleStory here, and there are obviously many more. Because of this, it is unable to fail  and , policies of Wikipedia. It doesn't fail  (quite clearly) and  which hardly applies at all. The deletion of articles based on  (and other rules) is not judged from the sources on the article, rather, the sources available - I've clearly supplied these. The ease and accessibility of these sources leads me to think this was a bad-faith nom.—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:WEB||WP:NOR)

Comment: bordering on . While the article could use more citations, that's nothing to delete the entire thing over. Just plop the tag on the top. Trimming wouldn't hurt either. Yeah, the article needs a LOT of work, but there are better ways to get your point across then putting it up for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: per nom.  No |verifiable third-party sources to reference its notability.  Fails WP:WEB
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)