Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallout 4 (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   merge to Fallout (series). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fallout 4
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL with a side of WP:HOAX (well, the hoax part is debatable). The article creator should've waited for more concrete information to come. [ citation needed  ] 01:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (and probably salt as redirect) per failing WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL -- speculation about yet unreleased game. No in-depth sources on the subject exist, because the game is not even announced yet. All the references in the article are not about F4, but the developer, previous versions, unreliable sources, etc. Nothing is solid, every comment is a "may be", "probably", etc. While I have little doubt the game will be eventually announced and released, it is too early for an article. I don't see anything worth merging (that previous AfD conculded), and a redirect is fine. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a few artciles about it just in the past hour kotaku and IGN both reliable sources. The amount of media attention this is getting is insane, there's dozens of articles a day and hundreds of thousands of google searches. It's talked about enough to be included on wikipedia. Atotalstranger (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep  the hoax associated with Fallout 4 has generated a lot of press. The IGN article is solely about this topic (well about a lot of things, but Fallout 4 is the major topic).  That plus the articles on (what turned out to be) the hoax is plenty. Hobit (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles on hoax are about the hoax. The topic here is Fallout 4. We can mention the hoax, but that is extra information. Those are not GNG sources for the topic at hand. The IGN article is a blog by someone who claims they know this, and is not a reliable source. What other in-depth press coverage have I missed? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles on the hoax are about the game and clearly would be included in this article, so they count. That said, we'd need at least one reasonable source about the game.  I thought the IGN one was such a source, but I was mistaken--I thought it was the BLOG of an IGN writer and it is no.  So I'm at  weak delete  until at least one solid RS covers something about the game or its development in some reasonable degree of depth. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * in the past hour IGN’s Senior Editor Colin Moriarty wrote an article about it. Atotalstranger (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oyi. Ok, I'm now neutral that isn't a great source (not much detail at all) but it seems really likely that there will be more shortly.  We could delete this, but it's a very close call at the moment and it will be clearly notable in the very near future.  Hobit (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The game may not have been officially announced yet, but it has garnered enough media attention to be included on Wikipedia. Atotalstranger (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What reliable in-depth media attention? It has certainly garnered a lot of fan attention and speculation thus seemingly lots of overall attention, but I can't find significant coverage from actually reliable sources. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of mainstream gaming sites reporting on it, just in the past hour IGN’s Senior Editor Colin Moriarty wrote an article about it. Atotalstranger (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviewed and replied below. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per users Hobit and Atotalstranger. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. When there's an official announcement, it can get an article.  This is just rumor, speculation, and an exposed hoax. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and Protect Redirect - "Fallout 4" is a likely search term, but with lack of any official announcement, should not have a standalone article. --M ASEM (t) 19:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And to update: while leaked documents appear to confirm the game, they are only that, leaked documents. As such, should be covered on the main Fallout series page and not here. --M ASEM (t) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, today there was huge news but its a leak, and nothing is set in stone until Bethsuda announces it; and even if we considered the leaks reliable, all that it says its coming and set in Boston. The redirection option until a future time makes the term searchable and on the Fallout frnachise page, the mention of the leak can be discussed. --M ASEM  (t) 07:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * IGN reporting the same thing what Kotaku said from "leaked documents" is not a reliable source. "Two weeks ago, a Kotaku reader sent me several documents" -- this is the essence of unreliable no matter how sources sensationalize it. Real or not, no official body has confirmed this. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and Protect Redirect to Fallout (series) per Masem. The confirmation of Fallout 4's existence comes from leaked documents which don't explicitly mention the game. Let's hold off from having a separate page until we have concrete information. CR 4 ZE (t) 01:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination due to my belief that enough media attention has arose in the midst of this discussion. Of course, this is by no means a snowball, and anybody is free to start a new discussion. However, my initial concerns have been silenced at the moment. [ citation needed  ] 00:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if withdrawing automatically means to end the discussion, but my two cents:


 * Merge to Fallout series main article. Is there a Fallout 4 in development? Probably, hopefully. Should we already have an article it? No, per WP:CRYSTAL (all sources are based upon rumors and unconfirmed leaks), WP:GNG (only a couple of video game-specific outlets have commented on it) and WP:TOOSOON (there isn't anything noteworthy to go on). --Soetermans. T / C 14:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep After the recent news about trademarks, it is clear that Bethesda Softworks will soon publish the game, thus the article should be kept.HypedBeaver13 (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then we will create the article when they publish it. We don't create pages just because they are likely to exists in the future (WP:CRYSTAL). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, to have a trademark listed doesn't mean anything either. Video game developers and publishers often make sure that any optional name or product is protected. For instance, last year, Sony patented a Move peripheral which never saw the light of day. --Soetermans. T / C 11:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed and I understand, I am withdrawing my keep, and now am neutral.HypedBeaver13 (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and protect redirect. There's evidence of significant coverage of rumors for the game, but not for the game itself. And there's not nearly enough material to justify a full article. Most sensible solution is a merge to the series page, where it can always break out summary-style. (On procedure, even though the nom withdrew, the AfD doesn't qualify for SK#1 since there are other remaining arguments for deletion.) czar  ♔  18:01, 15 December 2013 (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.