Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda (Wii) (3rd 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 07:31Z 

The Legend of Zelda (Wii)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was previously deleted back in June, but somehow got recreated and wasn't deleted under CSD G4. I'm not entirely sure whether this simply went under the radar or whether the actual content was different. Anyway, one user tagged it as not notable, I prodded it, and another user endorsed that prod. The article was deleted when the prod expired, but it was contested on DRV (with no reason given), so per policy it was restored. Now we're back at AfD. I maintain that this article is simply a crystal ball for a future game. Of the two sources in the article, one says nothing more than "our sources say it's in development", and the other is in fact about Twilight Princess – a completely different game. Fails WP:NOT a crystal ball, doesn't have WP:N's multiple non-trivial sources. – Steel 13:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Your assertion is misleading. One of the sources is an article about Twilight Princess, yes, but it includes a mention of the game in question, from back when the Wii was still the Revolution, and LONG before the Wii port of TP was planned. Crystal-balling would be saying that Nintendo’s next system after Wii will have a Mario, a Zelda, and a Pokémon. Of course it will, but nothing about that has been said by anyone from Nintendo. Something has been said about the next Zelda for Wii. Getting mnts is necessary, yes, but I don’t believe it is impossible, I am sure I saw it mentioned during a similar interview on Gamespot too, I think it is likely elsewhere, as well. And, for the record, I didn’t leave a reason on DRV because it says to submit Prod contestations in the format “[Pagename]] -   ”. --WikidSmaht (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment all we have is a couple of passing mentions. Where has it been the subject of non-trivial published works? – Steel 15:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - really a case of WP:CRYSTAL. I checked out the sources, which only mention the upcoming game in passing, and don't really provide verification. Rumours have no place on Wikipedia. Walton monarchist89 15:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - both sources do appear to be referencing a Wii game that is not Twilight Princess. However, I don't see why this game is deserving of an encyclopedia article just yet. Most gamers know that, at any given time, there is a Zelda game in development (and a Mario game, and Pokémon, and Metroid, etc). The game probably will be released, yes. The game is almost definitely in development, yes (based on the two sources provided, which are reliable). However, that's about it. It's a game that is in development and will be released sometime in the future. So, the question is- do highly-anticipated games (or books, movies, etc) that are definitely in development deserve a Wikipedia article? Should we have higher standards than GameFAQs and the Internet Movie Database? There is also the problem regarding the lack of multiple secondary non-trivial sources about the game itself, though there eventually will be, so this isn't as big of a problem that some might think. --- RockMFR 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It might stay as a stub for a while but when the game is given a name it can just be renamed. -Dark Dragon Flame 21:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect to The Legend of Zelda (series) Nothing substantial/that isn't already covered in the series article. &mdash; Ian Moody (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a textbook case of crystal-ballery. For precedent see Devil May Cry AFD. Hbdragon88 23:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear-cut case of WP:CRYSTAL-balling. Any given major series generally has the next installment in production.  That does not mean we have any encyclopedic information about it, as yet.  --Haemo 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Looking at the sources given, we have one from over a year ago before we knew there'd be a Wii version of Twilight Princess, so for all we know that project was superseded by the TP port, and another that's basically reporting on rumors. I would be shocked if there isn't another Wii Zelda game, but right now there's not enough to base an article on. BryanG(talk) 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's nothing but rumours. The game doesn't deserve its own page yet.DreamingLady 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't a game in development. This is game that someone has expressed interest in possibly developing sometime in the future. This isn't in the blueprint stage; it's not even in the buying drafting pens stage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It could be that there's reliable information out there related to a new Wii-related Zelda game. I've heard that beginning with the next game there's going to be a lot of change related to the series. However, there's certainly NOT enough information to base an article around. Cheers, Lankybugger 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for now; article can be created when the game exists. --Alan Au 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, of course Nintendo will keep releasing Zelda games. Wait until we have some kind of information besides "Nintendo intends to develop another Zelda game". &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pending better references WP:Crystal ball doesn't require you to to wait for an "official announcement" before making an article about a future product, but you do need to have information that comes from referenced, reliable independent non-trivial articles about the product. Unfortunately this article only has a couple of very minor looking references, both of which might not be reliable (one was in a "gossip" section, for example).  Delete pending more reliable, significant articles about the game. Dugwiki 20:51, 27 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.