Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell's Gate (novel)


 * 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. The arguments that this is basically only an unsourced plot summary is compelling. Can be recreated with real content and real sources.  Sandstein  21:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hell's Gate (novel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book with no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG --Joshualouie711talk 17:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Both authors appear to be notable, and there appear to be plenty of reviews: Pub Weekly, Library Cat, Fantasy Literature. Reviewing this, however, it seems like the overall feeling is the series is pretty "meh" and overcomplicated, but bad reviews do not make a book non-notable.  I don't see any awards. I note that the other volumes in the series are redlinked and not-yet-linked at all in David Weber bibliography, so it might be appropriate to merge there, or to a separate series article, instead. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep appears notable, would be okay with merge per above. Artw (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete At first I thought about a merge to the series article, but the series is non-notable, and a merge to David_Weber_bibliography would be just a plot summary merge since there is nothing else here. I do remember enjoying this book and its sequel, and the lack of continuation generated some fan discussions, but I can't find a single review, or anything outside forum discussion. User:Jclemens sadly seems to confuse book blurb with a review. All the links he lists and calls reviews are publisher's book blurbs, and sadly, that's not enough to prove that this book is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the article lists no sources and the links offered above are not convincing for notability of this particular work. There's nothing to merge as the article consists of the plot only. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - not seeing significant coverage here. Neutralitytalk 17:32, 25 May 2017 (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.