Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthworm Jim 4


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Earthworm Jim 4

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOT-Crystal Ball Entire article a record speculation the most useful blurb is the referenced comment from Oct 2015 indicating tat this game product never existed BrandeX (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  07:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The game exists.. We just don't know what had happened to it. It is covered by reliable sources, including TenNapel's denial of his involvement in the project. I see no problem with it having its own article. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nomination is extremely misleading. Yes, the game has been stuck on development hell for years, but none of the content is speculative - it's entirely sourced content, by third party reliable sources, much of it commentary by the creators or companies related. Being released is not a criteria for having its own article, third party coverage is. Plent of reliable sources, per consensus at WP:VG/S. It meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  15:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources that dedicated entire articles to the subject:
 * http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/04/23/earthworm-jim-returns
 * http://www.gamesradar.com/earthworm-jim-4-still-coming-when-the-original-team-can-get-round-it-currently-has-awful-character-design/
 * http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/23/earthworm-jim-4-announced-by-an-overenthusiastic-interplay-no-p/
 * http://www.gamezone.com/news/new-earthworm-jim-game-will-probably-happen
 * http://www.1up.com/news/interplay-announces-earthworm-jim-4
 * http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-17-david-perry-sure-a-new-earthworm-jim-will-be-made
 * http://www.gamezone.com/news/creator-doug-tennapel-teases-earthworm-jim-4
 * Additionally, there are lots of passing mentions that help pad out the actual content of the article too. Plenty to pass the GNG and write out a complete article. Sergecross73   msg me  15:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Neutral . Strictly speaking, fails WP:GNG as the product doesn't exist. That said, WP:CRYSTAL does not forbid articles on future products with sufficient sourcing. So if one applies GNG for "announcement of EWJ4", then it kind of passes. I still think WP:TOOSOON should apply until there is an actual announcement (the 2008 one was later denied) by the IP owners or the contracted developer backed up by an in-development product. Most sourcing boils down to people wanting to make it and talking about it, but nothing real yet existing, just tons of rumors that are all denied . Current article (without directly using the quotes) could serve as a paragraph on development history if the game was ever made. I definitely consider content worth keeping, just unsure if it should be a stand-alone article or part of people's and developer's article. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Itd be more accurate to say that the game was officially announced by the publishing company, but the individual members of the dev team state that they're not personally actively developing it, but are brainstorming ideas for it. It was more than just an announcement though, the company has listed it as a game in development for many years (see article). "Disproven" probably isn't the right word, more like there is a disconnect between the publisher and the dev team members. But regardless of its development status, both sides of the story has received coverage over the years, making it meet the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  16:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I guess they are seriously talking about it. They just have produced no results. I doubt that's a topic deserving a separate article rather than a section in developer's article. But it has plentiful sources, so if consensus is to place content as a stand-alone article, I'm okay either way. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:GNG says nothing about requiring a product to exist, only that a topic be covered in detail by suitable sources. As a topic, Earthworm Jim 4 clearly meets this... Even if the product that the topic discusses doesn't exist yet. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I will consider sources as applying to the future product rather than the announcement and discussion of such a potential product. I guess I applied TOOSOON too strictly here. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I direct your attention to this AfD on Duke Nukem Forever. FrameDrag (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the world's most famous forever in development video game example is quite the same. We have plenty of counter-examples, for example Fallout 4. We discuss each article individually and should focus rationale primarily on general notability guidelines. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * More similarly, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingdom_Hearts_III_(3rd_nomination) - this article was kept back in 2012, prior its announcement, because so many third party sources covered commentary on the game during its long development. There is a precedent for keeping this sort of article. Sergecross73   msg me  22:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_Wars:_Battlefront_III_(2nd_nomination) too. Sergecross73   msg me  22:58, 16 November 2015 (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.