Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infernal (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 keep. John254 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infernal (video game)

Infernal (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete unsourced article about an apparently nn video game Carlossuarez46 05:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - does fail WP:NOTE, but an experienced editor should be able to fix this article. L337 kybldmstr 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I was going to say keep in lieu of above comment, but it has been here since May of 2006. Get rid of it! - Rjd0060 15:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and close per WP:SNOW Googling Infernal + Playlogic (the developer) + Review brings up a shitload of reliable sources demonstrating notability. This AFD is unnecessary. Someone another 20:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: While that makes sense, why hasn't the refrences issue been addressed in the last year since it has been tagged? - Rjd0060 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD isn't clean-up and there's no inbuilt timescale for article building. Someone another 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it another way, since we're having a discussion. Deleting an article as non-notable asserts that there are not enough reliable sources available to sustain an article on a particular topic. It's not a definitive statement that there are NO sources and that it will NEVER be notable, but comes to the conclusion that these sources are not apparent. Having agreed this, the article is deleted. Now, recreation of the article means that whoever does so has to go out of their way to prove that they're not just recreating something which is not wanted on WP. That's something more than a lot of article writers have to do just for starters. If someone were to recreate that article, unless the previous article was absolutely useless or consisted of nothing but a few sentences, then they're retreading old ground just to get back to where we were. It's for that reason that the onus is on the nominator to take reasonable measures to make sure something legitimate isn't getting flushed down the pan.

Another problem is that stubs are part of the evolutionary scale of articles, countless if not most articles start that way. Upon seeing some basic groundwork taken care of, other contributors can be encouraged to chip away at the article. If there's no article there anymore, there's no reason to chip at it. When it comes to referencing (as with the article lead), there's little motivation to do it when there's not much of an article to reference or write a lead for. Removing unreferenced stubs from WP wholesale would just deplete the project of future work.

Here's an example of a short/unwikified article on the 2nd of this month - it's not brilliant but there's material there to be worked with. Here's the same article today - still not brilliant, but a sight better. What happened? Me. That article has been sat there since November 2005, nearly two years, and its taken this long for references to be provided and some serious wikification to take place. That game has sources a lot more difficult to locate than the one we're discussing. Where would that article be if it had been pushed through AFD? Nowhere, because I wouldn't have started from scratch. Same principle, deleting articles on individual subjects is the last resort. Someone another 00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per press coverage found by Someone another. The reason articles can stay a stub for some time is that even writing a short article will take several hours of research - and as explained in WP:stub, this is no reason at all to delete if the topic is notable. --Allefant 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It just needs somebody to rewrite the articlewith sources. jonathon 20:44, 15 October 2007 (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.