Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel Kingdom

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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Kingdom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded for failing WP:WEB, rejected by original WP:COI editor without addressing notability problems. Sources are merely a local paper writing about how the developers got $800k of funding for unrelated (?) projects, a reprinted press release about how the game donated some money to charity, and the fact that the game was nominated for (but did not win) some apparently unremarkable "bestappever.com" award in 2009. McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - Barely, but meeting, GNG. A well-known game that has received some media attention [1], [2]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New York Times shows brief mention of it. [3] Oh, hey, look. [4] Their official site of course list all the notable media sites that have reviewed them favorably. So they have gotten coverage. Dream Focus 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the NYT article including two paragraphs about the game, and possibly the TechCrunch review, the "notable media sites" appear to be WP:RS-failing app review blogs. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of Dream Focus, This has reliable sources, and may meet WP:GNG. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG stipulates significant coverage; "significant coverage" does not imply imply coverage in just a handful of reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on the fence on this one, but yes, solid coverage in a handful of reliable sources is enough. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2011 (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.