Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gates of Hell (video game)


 * 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 delete. North America1000 02:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Gates of Hell (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Best Way, the publisher. There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of the game in reliable sources.  I tried a few variations of search terms, including publisher, developer, and "men of war", which is a previous game the Wikipedia article references.  A redirection will preserve the content for when this is released and (hopefully) becomes notable.  I guess deletion is alright, too, but the publisher will probably attract a few reviews based on their previous titles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the reasons outlined by User:NinjaRobotPirate above. However, I don't think it would be a particularly useful redirect, as it's not a very likely search term.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete - The article as it stands doesn't have much content worth preserving, so in the event that the game achieves notability, I think it would be better to start over and create a new article based on independent sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 18:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per OP, insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2016 (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.