Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Nukem Forever: Restoration Project: Difference between revisions

Duke Nukem Forever: Restoration Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable fan-made restoration of an unreleased game, albeit an infamously unreleased one. As an WP:ATD, we could WP:DRAFTIFY if there’s any sign the project is nearing completion or WP:REDIRECT and WP:MERGE to Duke Nukem Forever or Development of Duke Nukem Forever.

Rationale: Other than Game Rant, virtually none of the sources are about the Restoration Project, just that the 2001 build that would serve as the basis of that project leaked online; most of this sourcing is virtually coverage of the same event. Other coverage about the project from Time Extension or TechRaptor is generally not considered reliable enough coverage. Regardless, this is simple enough detail to cover in a broader article, which lacks description or detail on gameplay anyhow. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question here, should I just keep it draft rather than publishing it? I’m pretty sure the deletion isn’t needed unless anyone are allowed to edit the draft once it’s no longer lacking. LakerMakerBaker606 (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LakerMakerBaker606:, whether the article is in main-space or draft-space, anyone can edit it. If you believe that sourcing is available that would justify a full article on the subject, you should tell people about it here, now. You can then argue that the article should be draftified until you have a chance to incorporate the references into it. But if the sourcing simply doesn’t exist, unfortunately the article should be deleted rather than draftified, as it has no hope of ever being ready for main-space. Elemimele (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]