Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdoms and Lords

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. Already deleted per WP:CSD G5 by User:Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms and Lords

(Find video game sources: "Kingdoms and Lords" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Kingdoms & Lords" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 17:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found some links but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable video game passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Note that the WP:COMMONNAME appears to be "Kingdoms & Lords". Pocket gamer review, Gamezebo review, 148Apps review (author has good credentials). No other meaningful hits in custom RS search. This review looks good and author has credentials. This review also looks good and author has credentials. @Czar: per request.— HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count the 148Apps (see WT:VG/RS discussion) and All About Windows Phone reviews as reliable, but that still leaves two reviews (Gamezebo, Pocket Gamer) and possibly a third (I'm on the fence about Windows Central...) If the Windows Central staff is considered reliable, we're at the bare, bare minimum for writing an article, and if there is zero other critical reception or interest in its development, etc., I imagine the game would still be better covered in a list of Gameloft games, as this is not their first to receive this type of minimal treatment. czar 14:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable by itself as a generic mobile title. Three reviews does not mean it should have its own article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:55, 6 March 2016 (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.