Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Nukem 3D: Reloaded


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Duke Nukem 3D: Reloaded

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A tag was placed on this article since January 2011, but no efforts have been made to attain reliable sources since then. Although there are sources listed in the article's reference, the vast majority of them comprise of links to online message boards and non-notable online publications. In order to assert notability, an article has to receive suitable media attention, as seen for other mods such as Black Mesa Source or Sven Coop. I have searched for any publications that fulfill WP:RS but have found none. Given that the project itself is also undergoing an indefinite hiatus, the chance of it becoming notable is highly doubtful. WaltCip (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I had more luck   and Kotaku, Destructoid and neoseeker sources from the article look good to me.  Interceptor Entertainment plans are to finish development (see official site) and I'm not sure that nominator possess better knowledge of development process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the source list is not convincing, one can try more. I just reported sources from the first page of search results. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per sources found. Despite being "fan-made", it's getting significant third party coverage. Sergecross73   msg me   03:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per sources found.  Salvidrim!   19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

References:


 * 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.