The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 01:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic MUD

[edit]

Nice article, but appears to be (self?-) promotion of a rather unknown MUD (of which there are thousands). Lacks any evidence of external review, sources, importance, etc. >Radiant< 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.