Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs


 * 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 per WP:NOT. Sandstein 09:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, WP:RS, apparently being used by some SOCOM forum as a "wish list" for a future game, see the talk page. Was prodded and speedy attempted. Tubezone 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Tubezone 18:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per just about every policy, guideline, and ounce of common sense we have. yandman  08:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, am curious if either of you two tried a quick google search first before gunning for this article to be deleted? (no pun intended... ;p) You will see that such a game is planned to come out for the PS3, and that is hardly surprising news either considering that this would be a squeal in an extremely successful franchise. Having said this though, the article could do with improvement. Mathmo Talk 08:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I did Google this, only turned up WP and forum posts, which are not reliable sources per WP guidelines. There is no official release date or announcement, even the article is peppered with phrases like heavily rumored, etc. Rumors don't count as sources, either. Tubezone 13:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly you didn't notice the reviews or interviews with developers where it was mentioned. Mathmo Talk 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Where? Put the references in the article, that's where they belong, readers shouldn't have to google references. Even if that kind of reference is provided, it still doesn't address WP:CRYSTAL problems. Why not just wait until the game is released for an article? Then there's no problem verifying anything. Tubezone 08:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With references it would meet WP:CRYSTAL, this is a major gaming series which we are talking about here. Mathmo Talk 09:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With references Ain't none. this is a major gaming series Which 99.7% of the population of the Earth doesn't give a flying shit about. About a kajillion people on this planet are out busting their culos trying to make enough money to buy a freaking tortilla for lunch. No article? Tough shit, suffer. Bite my shiny metal ass. Tubezone 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Is going to be game but the list of weapons etc. is not verifiable and is not cited, none of the article is.--Dacium 11:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment thus you accept this here can and even should be an article but the problem is rather the current page, in that it needs to be improved? Mathmo Talk 07:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No no no. Wikipedia is not for guessing games. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can speculate to your heart's content: game forums, MySpace, personal web pages, take your pick. When this game is officially announced, there will be a WP page on it. This is not a permanent deletion. Get your knickers untwisted, keeping this article will not make SOCOM 4 magically appear, besides, they could f**k it up completely and you may be sorry you got your hopes up. 'Pooter programmers have been known to screw up once in a while. ;-) Tubezone 10:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I take offense to the fact you are responding to me as if I'm some fanboy of the series, I've never even played a single game from the series. Am merely trying to put some degree of sanity back into the proceedings.Mathmo Talk 11:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

*DO NOT DELETE, A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH WILL PROVE ITS COMING OUT!!! Randomoss
 * Delete unless the information can be verified and cited to trustworthy sources.-- danntm T C 14:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The information on this page cannot be found anywhere else. It is at best original research, but most likely all made up.  In either case, it cannot be verified.  Aside from that, it is dishonest in a number of ways, such as the "Zipper Interactive Project Revealed" headline, when no such project has been revealed. Tzepish 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Already tried that. This 2 sentence IGN entry is the only thing I could find even close to a reliable source of info, and even that states that it's merely rumor, and NOTE: Although this game has been confirmed to be in development, it has not been officially announced. No list of features, release date, official name, or anything else that can be confirmed, has been announced. When there's something verifiable, this article can be restored with proper sourcing. Try to be patient, don't go Eric Cartman on us and run off and freeze yourself in a snowdrift, OK? ;-) Tubezone 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Either Trim mercilessly and stubify until actual details are released, or (second grudging choice) Delete without any prejudice whatsoever. If a new part of a widely published game is coming out some time, that's notable - but fan rumours should be treated as they are, fan rumours of highly debatable merit. Analysis of the fanbase's reaction has to go - altogether too speculative. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim+stub or Delete per Wwwwolf. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to SOCOM 3: U.S. Navy SEALs. And by merge, I mean one sentence about the rumor using the IGN link Tubezone provided.  There simply isn't enough information or enough reliable sources for this to warrant its own article.  ShadowHalo 04:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without any kind of concrete info, it's hard to justify.  Delete now and recreate closer to a release date.Korranus 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, can be recreated when game is officially announced. --Alan Au 23:33, 25 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.