Deletion of Ars Regendi (2nd nomination)

Comment: does not meet , woefully inadequate sources are a combination of trivial mentions which impart nothing that the game's own documentation won't and unusable materials. Ref #1 is a personal blog with no indication of why the writer's opinion is more |reliable than any random net user. As sod's law would have it, this is the only piece of any substance. Refs #2 and #7 are identical text, and a ''very'' short description of the game. Ref #3 is a 7-sentence description which is no more a review than an apple pie, it resembles a product description from Big Fish Games. Ref #4 is kind of staggering in the right direction but there's hardly anything there once you lift out yet another basic description of the game. #5 is the Alexa ranking and #6 is just a chunk of copied text from the game's website ending with ''"It looks pretty good. It says “Basic” membership is free, although I couldn’t find any reference to a “premium” service on the site."'' - exactly how does that establish notability? Sorry but the whole point of secondary sources is to analyze the game, which these aren't doing, and until that changes it can be nothing more than a product listing which is not what WP is for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:RS)

Comment: Delete per  as no reliable and significant coverage present
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Fails . No |references from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by . All references are self-published, blogs, or trivial side mentions, nothing significant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:SOURCES||WP:V)

Comment: Sources don't rise to the level of meeting 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)