Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackass: The Game


 * 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 per uncontroversial consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jackass: The Game

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, non-existent game. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because it hasn't been released yet doesn't make it non-existent. Has a ton of Google results, and also was mentioned at E3.  Gan  fon  03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . The game is under development, but not a whole lot is available for the game at this time other than a few reviews of the previews.  Not only does WP:CRYSTAL apply, but WP:SOFTWARE as well - and the problem with games in development is that until it's released or has an impending release, it should be considered vaporware.  Unless a firm release date comes off, my !vote stands. --Dennisthe2 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Keep, after reviewing discussion. Did not realize the precedent here.  Is now a good time to call WP:SNOW? =^_^= --Dennisthe2 05:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, was announced and shown at E3. That was pretty good notability. A game doesn't even need to be released (or even have a release date!) to be in wikipedia, take a look at Duke Nukem Forever. That is an article with the potential to be a featured article, though obviously in this case it wouldn't be happening before it is released... Either way, keep. Mathmo Talk 10:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * lol, just found out Duke Nukem Forever was put on AfD a couple of months ago because it didn't have a release date! So funny how far people can try to take this, it was a speed keep as it should be. No surprises there. Mathmo Talk 10:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of stuff is announced at E3 that never materializes. Valrith 13:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The point you are trying to make doesn't matter, we can already clearly see that the fact that something is not currently being sold is not a good enough reason on its own for deletion. Mathmo Talk 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see multiple, non-trivial third-party sources. Saying a game that hasn't been released yet isn't notable is just silly...if it vapors up, it can be deleted later, and there's a lot of notable vaporware out there anyways (such as, oh, Duke Nukem Forever).  Even games with release dates sometimes never get released. For the record, I found a release date: 03/14/2007. --UsaSatsui 11:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do you see these sources? Certainly not in the article. And you're right that having a release date means nothing. Valrith 13:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources? Easy as .  I'm not counting the web forum or the company page, but those 3 are third-party. --UsaSatsui 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Two of those (#2 and #3) are the same article posted on separate sites. And none of them establishes notability. Valrith 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So? Multiple sources print the same article all the time.  And according to WP:SOFTWARE, the product needs to be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s)".  That's what they have.  What further proof of notability would you like? --UsaSatsui 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep notability asserted. Has been displayed at E3. Definitely a keep. --  A nas  Talk? 12:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Though not referenced, the sources needed for the article to pass WP:SOFTWARE existed in the article days before it was listed for AFD, under External Links. I fail to see the problem. QuagmireDog 11:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs a lot of work, yes, but I brought it up to the standards of WP:SOFTWARE a while before this AfD was even processed. It's verifiable and notable by any standard you'd care to put it to. While some might be tempted to make the argument that the game wouldn't recieve as much coverage without the Jackass brand name on the cover, the fact of the matter is that due to this brand recognition the game is going to recieve a fair amount of attention almost by default. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think we can WP:SNOW this one, guys. Or more correctly, I'd prefer if we did not. Valrith has a history with this article and seems to be determined to take it down, and I'd prefer if it were to go through the full AfD process right now. Cheers, Lankybugger 17:01, 5 February 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.