Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominions 4: Thrones of Ascension

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 14:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominions 4: Thrones of Ascension[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. found only two reliable sources, IGN Italy, and the Rock, Paper Shotgun article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few more including a "blog" series from PCGamer (start), and RPS covers it a bit more extensively than just the review: RPS 1, RPS 2, PCGamesN, Killscreen, Wargamer, VG247, Indiegames. I actually didn't see the IGN Italy link. Don't know that I'm a keep, but I'm fairly sure I'm not a delete. --Izno (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At a bare minimum, even if it's not kept, it should be redirected to its prior game Dominions 3: The Awakening both as a plausible redirect and as an alternative to deletion. --Izno (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd mention above, that the PCGamesN link doesn't provide anything. VG247 looks like a routine release (Possibly paid), but the others seem ok. I'm still not convinced it is a definate keep though, and the article itself is a complete mess. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic has widespread coverage in reliable sources, including IGN Italy, RPS, VG247, and Kill Screen. JOE BRO 64 12:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but this thing definitely needs a solid rewrite. There's a lot of sources that pass muster from Izno and that meet WP:VG/RS-- the article as it stands right now is a hot mess, but it's notable enough to be a standalone article. Nomader (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2018 (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.