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. W.marsh 13:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gate 88

[edit]

Non-notable game with no reliable, non-trivial sources to support notability. Andre (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is perfectly good, and certainly seems to note the subject's notability. I see no reason to consider deletion here. Ninja! 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the only reference is a forum posting! That's not a reliable source. Andre (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps this is just my bias against deletionists speaking, but perhaps it would be best to find and add sources rather than just delete the entire article? It seems to me that a need for improvement is no reason for deletion.Ninja! 01:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable game, lacking in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you look at the press page on the site, its been mentioned in several magazines and gaming sites. Surely PC Gamer UK is a notable source. And although I know this doesn't mean anything to Wikipedia, its got a bunch of google hits :).MisterPhyrePhox 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MisterPhyrePhox. The PC Gamer UK cite and the other references on the press page appear to be legitimate and sufficient to make a decent argument for notability.--Kubigula (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.