Deletion of MMOsite

Comment: as failing 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: There are a couple blog-type sources that come up in a web search, but their reliability is doubtful. There is a book source http://books.google.ae/books?id=yYs_RiG-XvEC&pg=PA239&dq=%22MMOsite%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0hGQUJzmL5CurAfZyoHgDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22MMOsite%22&f=false here, but it's literally one sentence, and far from enough on its own to establish notability under  or . Aside from a couple trivial mentions in French sources, all news results are primary; they're the site itself. Doesn't meet the relevant criteria, unfortunately. I can't see where it could be merged
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: No coverage in reliable, third party sources; how we always establish the . The "Exclusive Interviews" argument is extremely weak, not only is that not a rationale I've ever seen work, but come on, every other |fansite on the internet gets "exclusive" interviews/content; that doesn't make them |notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FANSITE||WP:N)

Comment: Fails , the main determinant for notability here. I want to believe, but I'm not convinced that the linked articles are RS that would count for notability. (Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=mmosite&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FSources&fulltext=Search+this+noticeboard%27s+Talk+archives&fulltext=Search WP:VG's RS talk page for previous discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: Alexa rank is similar to  in that it could bolster notability, but not create it. The Google Book hit sourced provides a trivial, one paragraph mention. Other three sources are primary.  creation, but it just doesn't pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GHITS||WP:GOODFAITH||WP:WEBCRIT)