Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development hell

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The result was speedy keep - nomination appears to be withdrawn, only opinion favourable to deletion no longer applies as article now referenced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless list of unsourced, non-notable and/or original research. Take your pick really. Only source is a link to a site that has been shutdown by the hosting company MartinDK 12:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As originial research unless some cites can be found. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Keep - Inspiring insider-/backstage-information and personally good entertainment, but I agree the necessarity of the article is not completely relevant. Although I think it should be kept since it is a heavy document and the main author probably spent a lot of valuable time compiling the list. The examples can maybe be left out but the jargon as general should be kept. Karmus (Markus Lund) 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I concur except this is blatant listcruft. MartinDK 15:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Development hell is a real phenomenon, it's used as a reference to why so many films don't get made, and Tales from Development Hell is available on Amazon. Also consider these various references: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. DS 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found and added numerous references to the notability of the phenomenon from Variety, the New York Times, and other mainstream sources. Most books or screenplays purchased do not become films, and some languish for 50 years. Edit boldly to remove randomly listed films and other works which do not have cites or which do not clarify and exemplify the concept and make the article encyclopedic, or which lack citations and are original research. Edison 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Excellent. Sometimes the only way to salvage an article is to bring it here. The term itself is notable and easy to verify but the list needs cleaning up because when I nominated it it was orphaned listcruft of dubious value beyond the definition of the term itself. MartinDK 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable term and passes WP:Notability Valoem ^talk 19:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A noteworthy term in the industry as per above. "Needs cleanup" is not a reason to delete. Shimeru 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is NOT clean up. Whisp e ring 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it's jargon and possible WP:NEO, it still satisfies WP:V and is a commonly used phrase.--WaltCip 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up massively, the term is notable but the examples are...excessive, to say the least. The objective should be an example or two to illustrate the term, not to illustrate every time it's ever possibly occurred. Seraphimblade 06:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but delete all but handful of examples to be used in actual prose. Interrobamf 16:02, 16 November 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.