Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diablo 3 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consists entirely of idle speculation and would need a full rewrite in the event of the game being actually announced or published, at any rate.  Sandstein  17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Diablo 3
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is full of speculation and rumors. Speedy tag removed by an IP with no reasoning given. Fails WP:CRYSTAL for a future game release and Blizzard Entertainment buying a domain does not qualify for an article.  TN ‑ X - Man  19:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I'm really on the fence with this one leaning toward deletion for the simple reason that I believe the anticipation alone for this game is notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia.  The problem is, if we leave the article up while removing all of the rumors/speculation - and original research, we will be left with an article stub that will likely degenerate into a what-I-would-like-to-see-type article being passed off as legitimate information. I guess the better course of action is to remove the article until Blizzard officially announces whether or not the game will be released. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. It would be a notable game, but that would require it to exist --T-rex 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is no place for rumors or vaporware.  Or, for that matter, rumors about vaporware.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Salt if possible.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It will be recreated and rewritten from scratch if need be.--KorDen (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — WP:CRYSTAL. It can always be rewritten when and if this game actually gets released. MuZemike (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Temp Keep - Let's wait a week (less, actually) and see if it's announced at WWI before deleting. I think there's very good chances that it will be announced at WWI, because of all the rumors listed at the article, plus this one: http://www.sc2pod.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=260 &mdash; Mini-Geek (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait a few days - Normally I'd say delete, but the possibility of the game's announcement within days makes this a special circumstance. There's some substantial evidence amongst the rumours (although that this point they are merely rumours) that Diablo 3 may be announced the next 100-odd hours. If it is announced, then its rather inconvienent if the article has been deleted just a few days beforehand. Wait until after the convention to close this AfD. If Diablo 3 doesn't emerge and it is nothing but rumours, then delete it and salt the earth. However, if it is announced, the industry's media will probably be all over it so plenty of third-party coverage will come along, and its generally helpful to already have the article ready and waiting for improvement. Just wait for the WWI to be over. -- Sabre (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, I had to look this up... but Sabre's right. The rumor mill is spinning out of control, and there's an announcement around the corner. We may as well wait. Otherwise, delete as per WP:CRYSTAL: wikipedia is not a place for speculation. Randomran (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and wait Wait until all of the ice on Blizzard's page clears for an announcement. The gaming press is going nuts. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put the page up for WP:RPP so that if it is kept, the article is semiprotected until the rumor mill dies down, an announcement is made, etc. I have also called for the delay of the AfD so that we can keep it in case of such an imminent announcement. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded to the request at RFPP by protecting the article for 48 hours. However, as explained there, the closing admin will decide whether to wait or not. I can't just intervene, as that would be inappropriate. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  21:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Even if Blizzard do announce it, they're only going to announce it is going to exist. They're not going to give enough reliable information to justify a full article. -Rushyo (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. If Blizzard says anything about this, we can make an article. Until then, no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL and the whole article is a bunch of original research. We don't create articles based on conjecture - concrete sources are needed per WP:V. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly recommend delaying closure of this AfD until after the 2008 Blizzard Worldwide Invitational on June 28-29. If we delete this article now and then Diablo 3 is announced there, we'll want some of this content. So let the AfD stretch out for 9-10 days instead of the usual length, no need to be slaves to Immediatism. --Stormie (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only see one sentence worth saving. The rest is highly speculative and badly sourced; we wouldn't want it even if the game were announced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True, the article is awful at the moment, but an official announcement this weekend would no doubt provide a variety of reliable sources, from which we could construct a good article. Patience, my friend. JMalky (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect without deleting history to Diablo II for now. If the rumours are revealed to be true this weekend, a redirect can be quickly reverted and a well-sourced article can be built around it. Let Wikinews report the anticipation and buildup of an announcement, but this isn't the place to try and second-guess Blizzard. If the rumours turn out to be false, the redirect can be left as-is. Gazimoff Write Read 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delay decision until after Blizzard Worldwide Invitational I agree with Stormie. It's only a few days away, and an announcement seems very likely. At any rate, the page certainly shouldn't be salted.JMalky (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just looked into this in a little more depth. Seems the mysterious artwork at Blizzard.com is likely just a teaser for their convention. But I'd still recommend holding back on deleting this article, on the offchance. JMalky (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2008 (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.