Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of projects in development hell


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 20:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

List of projects in development hell
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/List of development hell projectsArticles for deletion/List of projects in development hell
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

— DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This list is entirely subjective. It will always violate neutral point-of-view requirements.
 * The list doesn't even specify clear inclusion criteria ("lengthy", "usually", "fairly" are ambiguous), but even if it did, the criteria themselves would be an NPOV issue.
 * Making the determination of "Project X is in development hell" ourselves will always be a POV judgment.
 * As it is, I also think this list suffers from verification, original research, and citation problems.
 * While there are some sources given, few to none justify the claims of "development hell", and several are broken links.
 * There is no question that various people might state various things are "in development hell". I don't see how we can pull together reliable sources to create a NPOV list.
 * Some notes on the scope of this nomination:
 * I'm not saying we should delete the article on development hell.
 * I'm not saying we cannot mention "development hell" anywhere.
 * If a work (book, etc.) on development hell projects is created, and that work becomes notable, that work can have articles/lists. If multiple such works exist, we might have a list of works on the topic of development hell.
 * This list was sort-of deleted once before:
 * Articles for deletion/List of development hell projects (27 June 2009)
 * Full disclosure: I was the nominator then, too.
 * Since my objections remain unchanged, much of the text of this nomination is copied from the previous.
 * I was tempted to db-g4 the new page, but I couldn't find conclusive evidence of recreation.
 * I do find it highly suspicious that this page sprang into being fully-grown in one edit, complete with already broken reference links, but I'm trying to give the benefit of doubt.
 * If an admin thinks this qualifies for speedy deletion (e.g., based on deleted history), more power to you.


 * Delete Unsourced original research &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: this has problems identical to the original list. As you say, there's no way that this can get over problems such as original research.  By the way, I've checked the version deleted some months ago, and the text itself is different, so we can't speedy this as G4.  Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment while i totally support deletion, i suppose an admin should compare the previously deleted article to determine if this is just a recreation, or if it has been improved. even if improved, i say delete, but at least we would then debate it here. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It probably does qualify as speedy delete, but I think that sourced articles about failed projects would be welcome. Most of this is already in the history of development hell anyway, so it's not as if it would be lost through deletion.  Why this was brought back with the same name and with no changes... well, beats the development out of me. Mandsford (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Baleet Is this an article about video games, or cars, or is someone who likes it just trying to pad it? horse   dreamer  15:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible merge of fully referenced material to relevent articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentBut merging material defeats the purpose... The page is intended to show disappointment or frustration garnered by not-to-be projects. This visibility will disappear if each (sourced) snippet is tucked under individual pages. The aim is to strongly connect a particular project with "development hell", or in other words, this page. Now, few companies are keen to admit their particular project is in this particular kind of trouble. Thus it is very difficult to obtain sources; especially to "prove" the project isn't simply abandoned or delayed, but truly in "development hell". CapnZapp (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to strongly link anything, that is for other writers to do and us to comment on in individual articles. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't usually like to say "per nom", but I don't think it could be said better. Development Hell is a term that gets thrown around with projects, and it's all subjective to opinion.  There's just no way to verify this list. --Teancum (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Random bucket of trivia, the vast majority of which is unverified, about things which are either cancelled or abandoned or merely rumoured or never get off the ground or... what the heck is that about? A lot of this info which can be verified is already in place in a relevant article. Although I can certainly see why some of these are of interest to many people, the way they're thrown together in this textual dustbin for things-which-aren't is depressing. Someoneanother 23:10, 21 December 2009 (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.