Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctic MUD (2nd nomination)
references given do not support the general notability guideline.  No problem with recreation should notability/significant coverage be proven via |''reliable'' print/web sources.  The first source, Internet Games Directory, is summarized as ''"This book includes descriptions of Web sites where readers can find the hottest online real-time games, in addition to how-to and strategy guides, non-real-time, proprietary, e-mail and listserv games"'' at http://www.amazon.com/Internet-Games-Directory-Lycos-Insites/dp/0789710552/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5 amazon.com, which sounds more like a list, |verifying it exists, but significant coverage is definitely dubious.  Internet After Hours does not provide significant coverage, as evidenced by the prose. Sources 4 and 5 are identical in their content, and again only lists the MUD.  If it went further on it being one of the oldest I'd say it could help establish notability, but it's just a list, and the reliability of the source is questionable anyway.  The remaining source is a FAQ, which most definitely wouldn't provide significant coverage. Print sources may exist, and I would recommend those wanting to keep the article visit their local library and bookstores to find significant coverage in books, which may be more likely.  Should the article be deleted, those sources would be very useful should someone choose to |request it to be undeleted
— User:Teancum, 20:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:V||WP:UNDELETE (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)