Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars: Battlefront III (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Deryck C. 14:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars: Battlefront III
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Per WP:CRYSTAL. This game has never been announced. Only been speculated about for years. There has never been any announcement that this game has ever been in development, again only rumors and speculation. Wikipedia does not publish rumors and speculation. Only "announced" products are notable enough for articles. Per WP:CRYSTAL short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. and Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Every source in the article is just rumor. In order to ensure the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia as a trusted site for information, and not some random dumping ground for the rumor mills, this article must be either deleted, or redirected. Either way, this game is not in development, never been in development, and there are no sources that say it will ever be in development. JOJ Hutton  03:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On the fence - I think the article goes beyond a product that simply never eventuated or a rumour about a product that might exist in the future. While its development may not have been confirmed by LucasArts, several involved developers have since confirmed its development and cancellation. Coverage of its development and cancellation has been substantial. I don't think WP:CRYSTAL necessarily applies - the article isn't suggesting a product might be released in the future, nor is it speculating on what the product's features might be. It records that an anticipated sequel to a notable game was created but never released. I think the subject itself probably does meet WP:GNG (there's no specific WP:N criteria for games). Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect and merge to Star Wars: Battlefront (series). Many and varied reliable sources address the game and its failed development; I think it warrants coverage somewhere, if only as a truncated blurb in the series article. --EEMIV (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect and merge - There is enough information which is reliably sourced to have the game's development discussed in the main series article. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 13:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge per above discussion. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There's plenty here that isn't rumor, but confirmed information. That being said it's still a stub that can easily be merged to the series article. (aside comment, I hadn't noticed the AfD prior to my last revert) It's likely that an official product will be announced at some point, and at that time this info can be merged into the "new" game's article a la Fallout 3. --Teancum (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable sources, and plenty to be said. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to the concept on a whole, since the prospect of the game received so much coverage. That's why/how Chrono Break (essentially a trademark) was not only kept, but promoted to Good Article status. Sergecross73   msg me   21:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of the game's release state, the subject, as is, has received more-than-sufficient coverage by reliable sources. I do not believe there exists mere speculation in the article - only statements backed by reputable publications.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 03:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All the sources are rumors. Wikipedia doesn't print rumors. No wiggle room. I understand that many will want to "keep it" because they like it, but theres no game. No game, no article.-- JOJ Hutton  03:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is also about a series of rumours. Hasn't actually happened yet. Has been in development for quite some time now. No sign of a release date. Developer has never released a statement about it. Most related statements are from those involved in development. No game, no article. Just sayin'. Ha ha. Wikipedia does occasionally record things that were (like Babylon), things that might have been (like the NYC subway expansion) and sometimes things that will be (like the Grand Inga Dam). But none of these actually exist. I'm not trying to argue the article should exist because other stuff exists but we should also not be arguing that the article should not exist just because the game does not. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC).
 * See, that's where you're not quite correct, JOJ. There is wiggle room; speculation is allowed if it's reported on by reliable sources, and it is portrayed as such. Sergecross73   msg me   12:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, what part of Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. leads you believe that there is wiggle room? JOJ Hutton  12:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The game as a whole has been rumored and speculated about. However, most of the sources are not themselves just wandering rumors and speculation. A good chunk of them address footage (and its removal). Some relate quotes from a developer on the project. One points to a ratings filing in Australia (alas, dead link now). Another asserts, not in any kind of speculative way but rather in a bold subhead, that a particular studio is working on the project. Another kind of mirrors this article, investigating why the game development was halted. And, yes, others report denials about the project entirely. --EEMIV (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The part that says Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included. There's another policy that I'm not finding at the moment that alludes to it as well. Also, my other argument would have been the same that EEMIV was saying above; the article isn't merely speculation, it's based on sources investigating details regarding the game too. Sergecross73   msg me   15:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And those sources are fine for when the game was still speculated to actually happen. But what you have here is speculation for a game that not only does not exist, never did exist, will never exist, but whose sourcing is reliant on video game magazines and blogs. These are hardly the reliable sources needed to confirm expertise. JOJ  Hutton  22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So magazines that specialize on the subject aren't qualified to comment on this? Magazine's based entirely on the subject aren't considered experts in their field? Really?? Anyways, beyond that stretch of an argument, there's still the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not a game is released, it's the fact that it gets coverage in reliable sources. That's why articles like Chrono Break and Kingdom Hearts 3 continue to exist even when they're put up for deletion. ( See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chrono_Break#Deletion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingdom_Hearts_III_%283rd_nomination%29 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonic_X-treme) Sergecross73   msg me   02:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really used Wikipedia as a source? See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I haven't seen that argument in a while. Moving on, if there are sources "speculating" about a game that has never existed and will never exist, then simply cover the information in the main article. A game that never existed and will never exist shouldn't have its own article.-- JOJ Hutton  02:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about? Who said anything about using them as sources? I'm showing precedent of other articles of games that were not released, but received third party coverage, and as such, were kept. I'm showing that there are many past examples of consensus for keeping articles just like this one. Sergecross73   msg me   02:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So those articles exists, so this one too? Redirect to the main page and give "some" information on a game that does not exist. Most of this current article is just announcing all the "false" rumors, and speculation. There is nothing in this article that is not a rumor.-- JOJ Hutton  03:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just showing a consensus against your line of thinking. A lot of valid, related arguments are given at the links. We can let the closing admin decide if it's relevant. Sergecross73   msg me   03:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's so much "coverage", still not seeing all the coverage, only the occasional speculation or rumor, but if there is so much coverage, then a brief mention in the main article should do the trick, so that the world will never forget that no game exists under this title. Just redirect and solves the problem.-- JOJ Hutton  03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're operating under the premise that a problem exists. Your whole "no game no article" mantra is your own personal philosophy, not any sort of Wikipedia policy or guideline. I see no problem here. I believe there's enough coverage to warrant keeping. It passes the WP:GNG. There's enough to be said that it warrants it's own article. Sergecross73   msg me   11:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sergecross73's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article sourcing is presented in with good formatting, but if you really delved into it, you probably would find some websites than Wikipedia reliable sources. However, the authors of the Wikipedia article haven't gone hog wild with the amount of information in the article and seem to make a great effort to source everything. On balance, even accounting for the citation to non reliable or non-independent sources, the topic probably meets WP:GNG with the sourcing now in the article. Some additional source material may include:
 * -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (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.
 * -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (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.