Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realms of Kaos


 * 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. (Although I'm still downloading it out of curiosity!) :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  07:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Realms of Kaos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page has been unsourced and labelled as original research for years. It doesn't describe how Realms of Kaos is notable. A Google search failed to find secondary sources. "Realms of Kaos" only yields 3 results in Google books, all of which use this Wikipedia article as source.EternalFlare (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is decided to delete it, then Realms of Kaos: Revolution should also be deleted. The latter was an article that was merged into Realms of Kaos, leaving Realms of Kaos: Revolution as a redirect.
 * "Realms of Kaos" got 400 hits on Google this morning. Many of these were to Wikipedia pages because, "Realms of Kaos" is listed on Template:MUDs, which is used on quite a large number of pages.
 * "Realms of Kaos: Revolution" got 58 hits on Google this morning.
 * I have not seen any evidence that "Realms of Kaos" is notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've never been able to find any sourcing for this article and a quick review today doesn't show anything being any different. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete did a book search and found a few things that matched but couldn't find any actual coverage (due to book not actually having coverage or no internal search). There may be some coverage in some of them, but looking  unlikely. Hobit (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2013 (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.