Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Chaos (online game)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Kings of Chaos (online game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page and the game itself have been poorly maintained over the years, and the game has fallen so far into obscurity that this page is of no necessity anymore. A lot of the "updates" have contained unimportant or arbitrary information, and reference points made are of no consequence to anyone who doesn't know of this game. Tytrox (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The game does appear to have fallen into absolute obscurity, and even back in the day doesn't seem to have even been a notable browser game. The sources are all from 10 years ago, for the exception of one book from 2009. Other games the 2009 book names are highly obscure titles like "Win Win Manager", "Parachute Flight" (2008) and "War of Warcraft"; last one obviously an attempt at World of Warcraft. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Not even significant entries or mentions in current reliable sources. the source in article looks okay, others are not in-depth. Can't access the 2006 or 2009 offline publications, but I'm doubtful they have any more in-depth content. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.