Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development of Duke Nukem Forever

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 keep. WP:SNOW joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Duke Nukem Forever

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is not encyclopedic. Yes, DNF had a troubled and long development history. So have many other programs and games. I don't see why this needs a separate article on its own. Presumably the development section in the main DNF article got too long and they spun it off as its own article, but it's really not notable on its own. ScienceApe (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Keep—This is the main article fork from the Duke Nukem Forever article. The delays in this release are approaching legendary status, so yes it is notable in the computer gaming business. It appears to have satisfied the general notability requirements and is not tagged with any warning notices.—RJH (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —RJH (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider Keep but consider tailoring this article better to be about all the previous attempts to release the game (eg as the king of Vaporware), leaving the actual true development of the released product in the main game article. This might require renaming the article, exactly what I'm not sure...--MASEM (t) 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD not necessary. If you wanted to re-merge the article back to the main article, where all this came from, you could do that on the talk page. However, I strongly disagree that this is not notable on its own. A 15-year development cycle for a video game is highly unusual given the pace of technology change, and I think the references in the article about the industry reaction to this speak for themselves. Grand master ka 00:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the timing of this AfD, just as the game is being released and more people will want to read about this. Grand master ka 03:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This game's lengthy development is absolutely notable. Tons of sources exist for it, and the circumstances around the game's development are unique. You could argue that far more people know of Duke Nukem for the lengthy development time than anything else. If there's enough info to support a separate article, and there is, I see no reason why there shouldn't be one. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The developmental history is indeed notable as it is so long (by count of years). However, adding it to the main article Duke Nukem Forever would make that article way too long. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First this was a fork from the main article which isn't exactly finished yet. And second the notability has already been proven, and even then this is a game for a notably long development time so if there is to be an exception this article would be one. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This saga has been covered in more publications more times over the years than the final product ever will be. Nevard (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most famous VG vaporware; the article has tons of references. Not only innaproriate to merge to game article, due to the size, but the stand-alone notability has been established. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per super-obvious notability. This stuff could not be covered adequately in the main DNF article, and needs its own article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I also agree that the development is notable. If this would be deleted, Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion might as well be deleted as well. GamerPro64 18:03, 14 June 2011 (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.