Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gate 88 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Gate 88
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged for notability since April '08. One source, which is a highly trivial mention in PC Gamer UK, a tiny sidebar in the downloadable content section. This is the only reliable source and isn't even significant coverage. Last AFD mentioned a press page on the game's website which has a number of unreliable trivial mentions, none of which are suitable. In the end there is no way this topic is significant enough to find enough WP:RS to meet Wikipedia's requirements. Andre (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Andre (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Andre (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Just looking at the "review and previews". The Linux Game Tome content is submitted by the game's developer, with user-generated comments, so is unusable. Warcry.com content is limited to previews, nothing substantial. GameHippo looks about as unreliable as they come. However, the Home of the Underdogs review is staff written ; this is a site I don't mind citing as a source. Combined with the brief PC Gamer coverage, this might just pass WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you about the Underdogs. This isn't a reviewed or reliable site, it's basically a fansite that got big. Either way though, the game is just one of the many files up for download on the site, not really a review or significant coverage. The PC Gamer is trivial to the extreme. Andre (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * HoTU is significant enough to have received positive attention from other major publications, Wired for example. What is it that you look for in a reliable source? Marasmusine (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliability for sources is not directly related to that source's notability or significance. It has to do with being reviewed, fact-checked, and perceived as reputable. Underdogs is first and foremost an abandonware repository and the text on the site is not known to be reliable as a source. Andre (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, hey, that's why it's a weak keep :> Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 reliable and 1 unreliable/borderline source is not a keep. Andre (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep large amount of gnews hits, and coverage in publications such as pc gamer prove notability UltraMagnusspeak 12:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I found one page on current Google News that says "A couple years ago, Jonathan Mak made a game called Everyday Shooter for PS3 and PC. Prior to that, he worked on a lesser known, multiplayer, action-rts game called Gate 88." Definitely a trivial mention. Searching the whole archive I can find one or two more mentions of Mr. Mak that mention Gate 88 in passing. Number of reliable sources is the metric, not number of hits. Andre (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to Redirect to List of freeware games: Whilst I'm currently still accepting HoTU as a source, it's still only one item of significant coverage - and I usually go with N. I've opened up a discussion about HoTU at WP:VG/RS, so depending on what happens there I may review my opinion in the future. Marasmusine (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2009 (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.