Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars Utopia


 * 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. - Bobet 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Utopia

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Complete and utter speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Not a single reliable source, i.e., completely unverifiable. No hits on popular gaming news/rumour sites such as IGN, Gamespot, 1up, Kotaku, etc. If even the rumour sites know nothing of it, why on earth does Wikipedia have an article on it? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the nomination (based on this version), the article has been cleaned up considerably by User:Aspectacle. In its present form, it is a good candidate for a merge/redirect to Guild Wars. I would withdraw the AfD, but the rules prevent it after several people have voted to delete. Some of you may perhaps want to change your opinions also. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * More recent news (see Aspectacle's comment below) to show that the game actually will not be named Utopia. The speculation was actually false, it appears. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article's entire content is rank speculation about inchoate material.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All that is officially known is that ArenaNet has stated that they are working on their forth campaign, and it's known that they have registered domain names for "Guild Wars Utopia".  At this stage, there's nothing official stating that those two facts are even related (they likely are related - but again, that's speculation). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - See above, I also proposed a move (to guild wars chapter 4) possibly IF the article is rewritten and speculation is somehow removed. Though that would likely leave us with an empty article --Midnight08 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. ArenaNet community relations manager has confirmed that a press release on C4 will come sometime midway this month or early February. There'll be a LOT more to add to it soon enough, so there's no sense in going through the hassle of deleting and recreating it yet. And besides, despite what Wikipedia is not, what it IS is an encyclopedia, which is meant to document as much as possible. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 09:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep United States Patent and Trademark Office data and WHOIS data are official, public and confirmed. The name Guild Wars Nightfall was registered the some way by NCsoft months before the official announcement of the name. So there is little to speculate. -- Twi light 10:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The sole smidgen of verifiable information the article desperately clings to is a domain name registration. There is no trademark registration. Regardless, no one knows for certain whether the domain name means anything. Go play your speculation games on some of the fansites; we document only what's verifiable from reliable sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IF there was a trademark on the name at this point, that would strengthen the argument - but there's not. --67.168.14.198 16:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well why else would they register the domain? --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There can be any number of reasons; until we hear it from the horse's mouth, we can only guess wildly. You seem a bit over-eager to make guesses that are off the mark based on scant information. Perhaps exercise a bit more restraint? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was almost bang on for most of that article, and Dhuum did havea major part in the storyline of that chapter. And I'm not saying that it's definitive, I'm saying that this is what the playerbase believes from what I have observed. If anyone disagrees or has evidence to suggest something ulterior for the content of the upcoming chapter, then they can feel free to edit. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The comments above about what "Wikipedia is not" contain links to official site policy. Your statements here have not linked to policies to defend keeping it, but instead only confirmed that it's opinion and conjecture at this point - which, if you read policy, you'll see is not what should be documented on Wikipedia.  It may be the actual name - even then, the entire content of the article beyond the fact that the domain name has been registered is nothing but conjecture and guesswork.  --67.168.14.198 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill or press venue.  I'm pretty lenient about having articles about released commercial products, but articles about pre-released (and pre-announced) products are pushing it.  I don't see what's wrong with just waiting until an official announcement is made before creating an article.  --Alan Au 17:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for now; about all we have for the moment is rumors, and it can be recreated when something official is announced. It's not as though there's a huge amount of content on the page to recreate. Mark Grant 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per WP:CRYSTAL. While the name is registered and a sequel is in the works, considering nothing is known about it, the current article contains nothing but blatant speculation. Delete and remake once the article topic fulfills Wikipedia criteria. --Scottie theNerd 21:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Currently there has been no offical announcement of this game, name or anything from the developer ArenaNet. There is only one acknowledged fact - that there will be a fourth guild wars campaign and that little bit of info is covered in the article Guild Wars.  Lets wait for that announcement. --Aspectacle 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - further to this Gamespot have made a blog entry claiming that a developer has stated to them that the Utopia name will not be used - here. This adds strength to the argument for deletion. --Aspectacle 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The name is confirmed. It just need lots of clean up.  Lightblade 10:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Provide reliable sources to substantiate the claim that the next expansion will be named "Utopia". — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The name will be confirmed in under a month. That is a confirmed fact straight from the company. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Link? Or are you just confirming that at this stage it's not officially confirmed when you say "it will be ..." --67.168.14.198 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The ArenaNet community relations manager has said either in-game or on a fansite, possibly both, that there will be a press release pertaining to chapter 4 in mid-January or February. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So in other words, by your own admission, nothing official from the game publisher at this time. --161.88.255.139 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Having an official name doesn't automatically make it worthy of an article either. Once the game is under actual substantial development and more verifiable content is made available, we'll make the article. --Scottie theNerd 14:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This will certainly be worthy of an article once officially announced (and verifiable), but not until then.  Have a little patience; if the announcement is pending, then it shouldn't be much of a wait.  --Alan Au 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as above. It looks like every section of the article contains some variation of the words "unconfirmed" or "not yet known."  For the name, domain registration could mean something - or it might not.  The same can be said for all the other "clues" and original research conclusions in the article.  Until a reliable source reports it, it's just speculation. --TheOtherBob 16:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is how the names of two preceding chapters were confirmed before the press release. And if not the name of the next chapter, what else could it mean? --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The press release was how the two preceding chapters were confirmed - before that it was just fan speculation. That they turned out to be right is inconsequential - good guesses are guesses nonetheless (and therefore original research).  I don't know what else they could mean - I'd need a reliable source to tell me.  Sorry, but fans are not a reliable source.  Wikipedia should never be the first to report on anything - until this is reported by a reliable source, it's just speculation and doesn't belong here. --TheOtherBob 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment no one cares about verifying that the game, under this or that name, has been announced. The game itself has no existence, it has no non-trivial treatment in multiple reliable sources, it is an unverifiable black hole. The article arguably verifies in reliable sources that the game is coming out, and under the name provided, but that verification is irrelevant because the name of this article is not speculation about Guild Wars Utopia, which is what the sources verify; rather, the name of the article is just Guild Wars Utopia, and no information is provided on that actual subject.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete When there is useful, verifiable information, recreate the article. My guess is that this really is the name of the next Guild Wars chapter, but until it's official named it's just speculation.  Even if it is the name, they could decide to change it before announcing it to the world. Prometheusg 05:37, 17 January 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.