Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Cthulhu: Beyond the Mountains of Madness


 * 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   merge to Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth. Courcelles 02:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Call of Cthulhu: Beyond the Mountains of Madness

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreleased game product that is in no way notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia article. At best it's worth a brief mention in the article of the game this was supposed to be a sequel to... and all that article does mention about it is that it was supposed to exist but doesn't. Tried just redirecting out but another editor insists on reverting. DreamGuy (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This:

But I'll also say I find maybe especially weird/hilarious-sad how he's so concerned about how I avoided unnecessarily sperging about the related games in "the article of the game" (which is GA). --Niemti (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, discuss the article, not the nominator. Sergecross73   msg me   16:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to the released game's article. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - Seems to be little content at article, Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth seems to be a great candidate for a merge/redirect target. Sergecross73   msg me   16:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge useful content to Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth - That's what we do with cancelled direct sequels usually, and this article doesn't seem to have the vast amounts of independent coverage to stand by itself.  Salvidrim!   06:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Salvidrim's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:33, 26 December 2012 (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.