Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA)


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 01:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The original article was prodded by yours truly when the author, upon myself asking if he wanted to do so, userfied it in good faith – see User:HK22/Unnamed Ratchet & Clank Future Sequel. However, before the cross-namespace redirect could be deleted per R2, another editor started editing it over the CNR and moved it to the current name. As with the original article that is now userfied, I use the same rationale from my prod: ''Article contains purely unverifiable speculation about a new game in development, which goes against Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It also doesn't contain anything that is not already mentioned in the Ratchet & Clank (series) article as of right now. Merging or redirection does not make sense as there is nothing verifiable to merge, nor would it be a plausible search term, especially when the game's title is [not] officially announced.'' (Hence the userfication since it's very likely the article will be suitable for inclusion in the future.) MuZemike 04:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 04:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to series article; speculation about future games, if such speculation is in fact appropriate, should be directed there, as per general practice (Halo 3: ODST was redirected to Halo (series) while it was unofficial, for example.) -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 04:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes it can be mentioned on the main Ratchet & Clank page, but I don't think this is a likely name to be written by users (hence why I don't suggest a redirect).  TJ   Spyke   06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Blatantly speculative material with no assertion of notability. Not a likely redirect, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 07:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Would suggest a redirect but the article's title isn't very useful and is unlikely to be used. Delete as it is unsourced speculation.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 08:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Oppose redirect for now. Aside from an unreferenced mention from the developer, the rest is blatant original research. The properly referenced interview sentence might be worth merging into series article, but nothing else. MLauba (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Oppose Redirect - Blatant speculation, violates WP:CBALL and WP:NOR. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign!) 19:02, 1 March 2009 (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.