Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey Kong Country Returns


 * 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. nominator withdrawn (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Donkey Kong Country Returns

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I think we are jumping the gun a bit on this article. While a well written, well referenced article may be possible once the release date is here, or at least closer, the current article is based largely on primary sources (Nintendo magazine and a press release) and the other references appear to be written based entirely on the press release. This doesn't do much to meet notability guidelines at present and is a bit of a crystal ball at the moment. RadioFan (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn per all the sources noted below that will help make this article notable, looking forward to seeing the improvements.--RadioFan (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is enough information available to give an idea of the game beyond simply its title and the majority of Nintendo's other E3 announcements for this year have similar pages. AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment other stuff existing isn't a good argument to make here. Actually if you could provide a list of those other pages, they could be added to this AFD and considered for deletion as well.--RadioFan (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Kid Icarus: Uprising and Mario Sports Mix are the most similar in terms of available information. AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - simply no significant coverage in reliable independent sources at the moment. Claritas § 19:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Several reliable sources (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) have reported on the game's announcement, so notability should not be an issue. While the article might be archaic and lacking references at the moment, there will probably be more in-depth coverage in the coming days. I don't see the need for a move as drastic as article deletion when the only thing it will do is double the work for people who spent time on setting up its "raw frame". Prime Blue (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Prime Blue. These will be reported on by IGN and other sites. So they will have third party sources. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment but does the coverage extend beyond the press release? So far what I've read is paraphrasing the press release.--RadioFan (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the reports from reliable sources are based on primary sources, it doesn't seem like the independent sources guideline differentiates. Prime Blue (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm inclined to agree. Every year at E3 we get brief announcements at first only to have more detailed news appear in the next several days.  Deleting is only going to create unnecessary work.  Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep: It has a trailer it comes up this Agust and i have seen game pages with less info than that. -- Pedro J. the rookie 19:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not quite a crystal ball-level article given that the game is actually announced, rather than just hoped for. Sources are coming; the article may have jumped the gun a wee bit, but I think this AfD has too. No biggie, though. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Why wouldn't you keep it? It deserves its own article and it'll be fully-fledged possibly in a matter of hours. AarnKrry Talk to me, babycakes! 20:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep For the overly obvious reason that it was just demonstrated at E3. Kanten (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Really? Trying to delete a page because there's not enough "third party sources" when it was just announced? So, so dumb. It's official, there needs to be a Wikipedia page for it, and we've got several sources. What's wrong with citing a press release, anyways? It's like saying no form of media should get a page dedicated to it until after its release. Way to try and keep Wikipedia eternally lagging. Sigh. Shadic (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep officially announced game in a major series. I might support merging it to the series article if it ends up getting cancelled, but that's extremely unlikely to happen. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't even matter if it's canceled. Canceled games with significant publicity are still notable. ScienceApe (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep What a ridiculous proposal. This game is well confirmed now, complete with screenshots and a trailer. Snowball clause takes effect. ScienceApe (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, This game has just been announced. There's a trailer for it everywhere and all gaming sites have reported on this.  This shouldn't be deleted. Maplejet (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The game is on display and playable at E3, meaning that they'll be a myriad of information for the game by a variety of sources very soon (Like within hours) Also the game really isn't that far off at least in comparion to many other video games. --Deathawk (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – plenty of verifiable information to go past "stub" status even. –MuZemike 07:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per basically everybody prior to me. Jeff Silvers (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This was an official announcement, and while anything has the potential to be canceled, if this is removed, we would have to, in principle, remove every "future" game/movie/musical album from Wikipedia just in case they get canceled. Happinessiseasy (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough out there to confirm what this article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheppens (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2010 (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.