Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned's Fate: The Glory Days


 * 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 05:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ned's Fate: The Glory Days

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to be notable. And there's obviously a conflict of interest too. Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - no indication of notability. Neutralitytalk 03:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - As with the company that developed the game, I would recommend speedy deletion if not already at AfD. There is nothing about this game online other than the Wikipedia article. Fails GNG terribly. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not tell us why the game is important and contains almost no information on it.  Ana  r  chyte   11:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per A7 and tagged as such. I had previously tagged this article, but the article creator deleted it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence at all of notability. ( Speedy deletion criterion A7 applies only to "a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event", and this does not fall under any of those categories.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * G11 is an option. --TTTommy111 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It is likely that the intention in creating the article was promotion, but nothing about the contents of the article is particularly promotional: it just tells us what the game is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ping me. – czar   01:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No third party sources, minimal content present to begin with. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  14:58, 17 August 2015 (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.