Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrospec (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As you can see this was AFD once before in January. (the other two AFDs listed appear to be unrelated) The result was to delete this, but apparently someone asked for this to be incubated because they felt bad about deleting it. that must be the reason since nobody has worked on it at all in all the time it has been incubating. Incubating is not just a way to help overly-sensitive users feel better about deletion, it is supposed to be a way to improve articles on subjects of marginal notability. So, we basically already had a consensus that this does not belong on Wikipedia, but the closing admin acted on what I am sure they felt was a good-faith request to incubate it, not realizing it would just sit there for nearly nine months. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of indie game developers. Sounds like an interesting project, but I can't find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that makes much sense. If there are no reliable sources, then we can't, or at least shouldn't have any content per WP:V, so there wouldn't be any content there realted to this organization, making a redirect more of a misdirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point was supposed to be that the existence is verifiable, though not through the standard of reliable sources used by notability. For example, WP:ABOUTSELF allows the use of self-published primary sources to verify trivial facts, but this would never establish notability. In trying to be concise, maybe my post was rendered seemingly nonsensical. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per Beeblebrox. Fails GNG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2013 (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.