Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinity: The Quest For Earth

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. Wickethewok 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity: The Quest For Earth[edit]

Game in development (WP:NOT a crystal ball), has only a main website as a source, no multiple reliable indepedent third-party media coverage (WP:V and WP:N) The Kinslayer 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 12:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, unverifiable and non-notable crystal ballery. MER-C 13:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, ~~Keep~~, certainly should not be deleted. The article needs clean up but I'm familiar with this one, there are other independent references available. The technology behind it is incredible (and being used in Openlancer). If its deleted I'll reopen it myself! --MegaBurn 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, But it certainly needs some editing. I'll find some 3rd party references for it tomorrow. Communisthamster 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 6th Dec 2006 (GMT)[reply]
- Just to let you know, Googles only turning up videos, blogs and froum posts in response to a search, and none of those are valid sources, but if you can find some good soruces, that'll be fine. The Kinslayer 21:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the Atomic magazine article but I can't find a decent link to it, doesn't even show up on Atomic's site search. Theres a scan available on the Infinity forums, I'm hesitant to link to it due to the blatant copyright violation but this thread discusses it. Theres another magazine article around but its older and I think it focuses more on the game engine technology than the game itself (UK game dev zine maybe, can't remember...). The Google results do include other notable sources but for each its little more than a paragraph, guess that doesn't help. I'll keep looking. Like I said, do not delete this article - independent sources are available, it is notable, it can be verified, and if it is deleted I will recreate it within hours. --MegaBurn 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You really should check wiki polcies before making statements like 'I will recreate it within hours' since then it can be speedy deleted within minutes as recreated deleted content. The Kinslayer 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Funny. Not if I edit the article and repost it on the grounds it was wrongfully deleted in the first place. The article is a mess, I'll give you that, but with the Atomic article as a primary source and a couple dozen notable minor sources (Google results, some German) the WP:N/WP:V concerns should be satisfied. "Game in development" is not a valid cause for AFD nomination, thats why the future game tag exists. The WP:NOT "a crystal ball" claim isn't valid, it doesn't need independent sources to be satisfied, any evidence the claims are valid will suffice - like the videos, screen shots, and the combat prototype (a fully functional game by itself). The only logical result can be keep for cleanup. I'm changing my stance to speedy keep and starting on the article cleanup. You're welcome to continue whining or move on with your AFD crusade, I'm just starting to enjoy myself. --MegaBurn 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please be civil to other editors. Thank you. Uncle G 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Threats and Counter threats are not helpful here. --OPless 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the page needs some major work to bring it up to standards, I've done some brief research and edited it. But I think it should not be removed. I will attempt to contact the developers to see if they can generate some "official" press releases, as there are little in the way of (online) primary sources other than interviewing the developers directly and their website.--OPless 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding online primary sources, if it helps there's a section on moddb.com including a three page interview with the developer, screenshots and videos. 83.147.168.73 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C Nashville Monkey 09:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 08:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate when the game gets some reliable source informaton. BCoates 10:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any reliable sources, as an indie game in early development there is no cast-iron guarantee the project will ever be completed. Once it is, hopefully some sources would become available, but until then it seems like advertising. QuagmireDog 11:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Atomic magazine could certainly be usable in the future but to me doesn't warrant an article about something so early in development, particularly when sources will appear when the game is actually completed. On that note, anyone interested in the game and the article would be well advised to download copies of the article pages and find out the relevant info to provide it as a published source, whilst both are still available. QuagmireDog 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Atomic mag is only one reliable reputable source, but the article needs Multiple, reliable, reputable, non-trivial, third-party sources to cite. The articles must be about the game and nothing but the game (no compliations, no 'in passing' mentions). Right now we have a crystal ball article. Also, "official" press releases, and any articles just reprinting the press releases are not acceptable per WP:V or WP:RS--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:02, 14 December 2006 (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.