Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Zelda Project

Untitled Zelda Project

keep it's notable, encyclopedic, reference and worthy of a page. what are your original problems with it anyway?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly are you talking to? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Confirmed in Miyamoto interview yesterday night. The gaming press (Gamespot, IGN) have already started covering it. Marlith (Talk) 20:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The article needs work, but is a legitimately confirmed entry in a major video game series whose existance and development was explicitly revealed. The article needs to be completely rewritten, with more sources than just IGN, and possibly a rename, but I think it should stay. If this is not feasible, I propose merging into its own section at List of The Legend of Zelda games. ShadowUltra (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response However, eventually, this will need to have its own article. I would agree that the article itself needs major work to become a verifiable stub. We should consider moving this page to a more appropiate name. Marlith (Talk) 22:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the article to make it a little more presentable. ShadowUltra (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just added the official artwork of the game released by Nintendo. I'd say, at this point, we have enough information to confirm a solid existance of the title and that it deserves its own page, albeit under a different name (I propose The Legend of Zelda (Wii), as that is the title on the concept artwork, though will obviously not be the final title). ShadowUltra (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merely existing does not justify an article for a subject. Right now, we only have a paragraph or two of content, which can easily be merged to The Legend of Zelda (series). When all that is confirmed about a game is a few vague gameplay details and a release date, there is little justification to base an entire article on it. We do not keep content on the basis that content may one day turn up for it, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You've yet to provide an argument besides "it's too small," though that policy states that "An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion." While this article is twice as long as most stub video game articles, using prior notability establishment is allegedly not allowed in deletion arguments. Therefore, I advise both sides of the debate find different arguments than "it's too small" (deletion argument) or "it will be expanded in the future" (keep argument). ShadowUltra (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that "it's too small", though, inherently contradicts the general notability guideline, which states that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Right now, most of the real-world coverage is based on speculation around the teaser poster and other small details released, which doesn't really qualify as "significant". Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, by default, as no arguments for deleting the article have actually been presented. I'd merge this to The Legend of Zelda (series), though, as all that exists at this time are a few tidbits of info from Miyamoto at E3. That's hardly the basis for a separate article. Too late for that now. Delete and redirect as a plausible search term per below. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. A Merge is actually unnecessary, because this information is already covered (in three places, a bit redundantly) at The Legend of Zelda (series). I agree that this is an important title that should have its own article when it's ready, but there's so incredibly little information about it right now, and that's not likely to change until next year. There's little point in such a small stub hanging around for that long. Arrowned (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Arrowned. Thanks! Fin ©™ 13:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's clearly notable and what we have is a decent referenced stub that can only grow. I don't buy the argument that this won't change until next year; developers and publishers give out teaser information in interviews all the time as part of the normal hyping process. Then again, this could probably be located in the series page and serve the same purpose without much harm, but we'll just end up recreating this page later (possibly without the benefit of its history information). — brighterorange (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ive had this discussion under the exact same circumstances regarding Dragon Quest X initially i felt a merge into the main series article was appropriate but concensus pointed out to me that the article would be re created anyway if it were deleted shortly. The main fact of not deleting this article is that the game is confirmed and even though no additional details exist beyond that it 'exists' is seemingly enough for the internet to establish its notability. Secondary sources pick these up like crazy establishing notability basically because the topic is sought out information and popular. Which is why the page is likely to be re created anyway if it were to be deleted. Additionally Movies that are not in principal photography (WP:NFF) generally warrent deletion based on simplified wiki guidlines, however; a more popular movie will again establish notability with secondary sources. I think unless this movie guidline spreads to video games as well theres no justification to delete the article. If I am missing anything crucial here like a policy im unaware of please inform me, thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Zelda (series) until there is a title and a release date/window. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]