Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars Eye of the North


 * 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 Redirect to Guild Wars. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 00:51Z 

Guild Wars Eye of the North

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not pass WP:A "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This is a hotly debated subject, and developers of the game have both denied and confirmed certain aspects of the quoted article without further specification. This speculation is not encyclopaedic in the least. Mikkelm 10:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There is nothing exceptional in this subject, this is only a videogame, not "historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people". Moreover, the development of this product was widely announced months ago, and devs have partially confirmed the contents of this article. The only reason they cant confirm it completely, are commercial agreements they have with magazines, and I dont think wikipedia is bound to respect agreements between third parties. The source, The Inquirer, is reputable, and has revealed other "scoops" in the field of videogames before. I think the notice its enough to warn readers that the informations in the article are not certain-- Twi light 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The reasons a subject might fail WP:V are irrelevant.  That it does is relevant.  If all you have for factual information are forum posts and whispered back alley conversations, the subject isn't encyclopedic; it isn't as if prizes are being given out to the First Creators of Articles.  Come on back when the game satisfies the requirements of WP:V.  RGTraynor 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete As was pointed out, parts of this article have been denied by developers. The fact that unknown parts of what the article presents as facts have been confirmed while other unknown parts of it have been denied makes it just too speculative. When exact confirmation and details are available, this article will have merit, but until then I really don't see how it belongs on Wikipedia when part of the article is known to be false. I'd vote for a rewording, but it's impossible to identify the inaccurate parts yet. 85.81.127.21 11:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been no official statement by Arenanet denying parts of that article. Only informal posts on fansite forums. It is even possibile that those forum post are inaccurate and actually all the informations provided by The inquirer are true. I repeat, we are not bound to provide official informations only, and if there is a leak like this, wikipedia must report it, IMHO. -- Twi light 12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * These "informal" posts have been by a community manager and have long been established as a legitimate channel for official information. Certainly more legitimate than an "anonymous source" in a questionable article. You used these "informal" posts yourself to justify your Keep, so I believe that makes it hypocritical to question the validity of the same posts to challenge a Delete. Wikipedia must certainly not "report" anything. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news portal or general information dump. Even when discarding the posts made by developers, this is nothing but an unsubstantiated rumour, and creating a Wikipedia article based solely on rumour or speculation is a big no-no. Mikkelm 12:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is no rumor, this is a source written by a professional journalist, who puts his reputation and the reputation of his magazine in his article. Denying relevance of alternative sources of information, you are basically giving Arenanet the monopoly of news about its products. Arenanet can decide what can be published on wikipedia and what cannot, simply informally denying or not confirming them. This is censorship. -- Twi light 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several things wrong with using this article as a source. It starts out by saying that "NCSoft has announced the development and release dates for regular annual expansion of Guild Wars universe", when NCSoft has in fact made no such announcement. The entire premise of the article is false. Beyond that, the grammar of the article lends no credibility to the author's supposed journalistic professionalism. I am all for trusting trustworthy sources, but The Inquirer's track record inspires little confidence that they belong in this group, and I do not believe that a blanket claim like "trustworthy source" can be applied here. This has nothing to do with censorship. It's simply not encyclopaedic. 85.81.127.21 17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, certainly problems with WP:ATT, and without that no article Alf Photoman  14:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete game expansion not notable in its own right, even if it does exist in the form stated. Percy Snoodle 16:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there is an entire category of articles about game expansions -.- -- Twi light 16:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep with the provision that this content be merged if the expansion is named different. While it's certainly possible that this could be false, if it were false information, that itself might be worth including in the future article.  In fact, given the denial mentioned above, that alone makes it worth including in my book. If there's an article for Guild Wars expansions in general though, I could support a merge there.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Expansion pack for a computer game which has not even be released yet. Not notable in any way. -- Necrothesp 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, as per Twilight's Strong Keep. -- Ianiceboy 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete It may be true, but I think it'd be nice to at least wait until ArenaNet makes an official announcement on it or else this could end up being just another false alarm like the Guild Wars: Utopia article was... --Rambutaan 04:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Guild Wars. Hardly any information for a stand alone article at this time. Announcements from the game maker are not necessarily the most important announcements, but as of this moment the sole source is an online gossip 'zine. If these details were announced in the GDC, there should be wider coverage from other reliable sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Im fine with the redirect: at least informations will be reported, and when new sources will be available, we will be easily able to rexpand it into a stand-alone article. -- Twi light 08:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nomination Withdrawn as per the redirect. Mikkelm 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as page is now a redirect, which is appropriate. Koweja 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why nobody closes this nomination? the AfD message is awful on a redirect page. -- Twi light 13:58, 10 March 2007 (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.