Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DayZ Game


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DayZ Game

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

After heavily cutting down on the speculation, irrelevant material, cruft, and other nonsense in the article, this is what is left. Two paragraphs basically saying that the game has been announced, and two facts about it. While the DayZ mod may have been notable, notability is not inherited here. Until such time as there is more than speculation on the game, it's little more than a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  21:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This is the DayZ "Standalone game", NOT DayZ mod. Please take note of the difference before commenting. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see no reason to keep this article around as the DayZ mod article more than adequately covers all the necessary information. Mromson (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete - What details there are on the retail standalone can be in the mod article until if such a time the retail game is released (though it would not exist at this article name). --M ASEM  (t) 18:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep DayZ (the mod) has caused a storm in the gaming world much like that caused by Minecraft and Angry Birds, quickly becoming one of the most talked-about releases of recent times and appearing everywhere from magazines to the UK's video game retailer weekly, which is no small feat considering that it is a free mod! There are two perfectly viable sources already in this article, here's another and another. The mod is a Big Fucking Deal, there is zero chance of a standalone game built from the ground up being anything else. Someoneanother 18:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of the mod's popularity, its the crystal-ball factor that a retail version will be a Real Thing. Once it has been 100% affirmed (the way the sources read, this is still very hopeful it will happen). But, that said, if there is a retail version, are we going to need separate articles for the mod and the retail game?  I dunno. --M ASEM  (t) 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that this, published hours ago, dispels any doubt that they're serious about the undertaking. Since they are independently notable keeping them contained in the same article introduces WP:WEIGHT issues where there needn't be any and introduces a potential How to Get Ahead in Advertising situation where the original mod which caused the storm ends up being a talking zit on the shoulder of the later commercial product. The mod has historical importance as a mod, not just as part of a potentially larger 'thing', by keeping them clearly demarked in separate articles the mod can receive all the attention it needs as a separate game. Someoneanother 22:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that really doesn't affirm the game will be release in retail (though clearly they're trying all they can). The reason to keep the mod and retail game together is that I would except there to be major overlap between the two (the gameplay's going to remain the same, and its doubtful the standalone will have that much of a different reception).  The only difference really is information about making the standalone.  This is a classic case of keeping the two different releases in the same article. --M ASEM  (t) 00:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * someone another, I think you're confusing the mod and the standalone game here. Nobody is talking about deleting the mod page. But the standalone game does not have enough information about it to justify a page, and notability is not inherited via the mod. In other words, if the DayZ mod never existed, but we had an article on the game, it could not possibly withstand an AfD. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  11:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I promise you that I have not misunderstood your nomination. What I am disputing is that the standalone game is propped up by the mod's sources - discussion of the upcoming project is already happening. I also see a danger in housing both separate projects in a single article, a free mod reliant on a 'donor game' is a different animal to a commercial video game, paricularly when it is the catalyst for such a noted wave of interest from gamers in general and the press. A little redundancy in the gameplay section is a small price to pay for the space and demarked clarity to explore areas like the reception and development of both projects, the 'real world' details which a good quality article on a video game needs. I doubt that I will be swaying any opinions with this line of thinking so won't be continuing in this debate. I won't be swayed by the supposed benefits of merging, more often than not it causes internal battles for relevancy within the target articles and stifles expansion. Someoneanother 18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I would say this page should be deleted. The standalone game can just be added to the mod page. It doesn't need to have it's own page as of now. OneInfo (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, doesn't really need a seperate article. 216.177.248.162 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions . — Frankie (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - The Wikipedia article title "DayZ Game" is part of the problem because that is not the right name for the topic so Wikipedian's can't find reliable source info on the topic. It's too new, so there doesn't seem to be a common name for the topic. August 7, 2012: DayZ to get standalone release and August 18, 2012: The Guide: Games news provide details on the topic. However, the topic doesn't yet meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. --Enok (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.