Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Zelda Project


 * 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. Notability is conferred by multiple, secondary, independent sources - it is not inherited from the fact that it is part of a series per WP:INHERIT, which invalidates about half the points made within this discussion. Those favouring retention have failed to adequately address the concerns of those favouring deletion. Per analysis following the deletion guidelines for administrators, I assess that consensus here is to delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Untitled Zelda Project
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

keep it's notable, encyclopedic, reference and worthy of a page. what are your original problems with it anyway?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who exactly are you talking to? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Confirmed in Miyamoto interview yesterday night. The gaming press (Gamespot, IGN) have already started covering it.  Marlith  (Talk)   20:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. The game does indeed exist, but the appearance of many primary sources and a lack of concrete information make me uneasy with the existence of this article.  Marlith  (Talk)   15:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: The article needs work, but is a legitimately confirmed entry in a major video game series whose existance and development was explicitly revealed. The article needs to be completely rewritten, with more sources than just IGN, and possibly a rename, but I think it should stay. If this is not feasible, I propose merging into its own section at List of The Legend of Zelda games. ShadowUltra (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Response However, eventually, this will need to have its own article. I would agree that the article itself needs major work to become a verifiable stub. We should consider moving this page to a more appropiate name.  Marlith  (Talk)   22:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article to make it a little more presentable. ShadowUltra (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just added the official artwork of the game released by Nintendo. I'd say, at this point, we have enough information to confirm a solid existance of the title and that it deserves its own page, albeit under a different name (I propose The Legend of Zelda (Wii), as that is the title on the concept artwork, though will obviously not be the final title). ShadowUltra (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merely existing does not justify an article for a subject. Right now, we only have a paragraph or two of content, which can easily be merged to The Legend of Zelda (series). When all that is confirmed about a game is a few vague gameplay details and a release date, there is little justification to base an entire article on it. We do not keep content on the basis that content may one day turn up for it, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've yet to provide an argument besides "it's too small," though that policy states that "An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion." While this article is twice as long as most stub video game articles, using prior notability establishment is allegedly not allowed in deletion arguments. Therefore, I advise both sides of the debate find different arguments than "it's too small" (deletion argument) or "it will be expanded in the future" (keep argument). ShadowUltra (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that "it's too small", though, inherently contradicts the general notability guideline, which states that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Right now, most of the real-world coverage is based on speculation around the teaser poster and other small details released, which doesn't really qualify as "significant". Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, by default, as no arguments for deleting the article have actually been presented. I'd merge this to The Legend of Zelda (series), though, as all that exists at this time are a few tidbits of info from Miyamoto at E3. That's hardly the basis for a separate article. Too late for that now. Delete and redirect as a plausible search term per below. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. A Merge is actually unnecessary, because this information is already covered (in three places, a bit redundantly) at The Legend of Zelda (series).  I agree that this is an important title that should have its own article when it's ready, but there's so incredibly little information about it right now, and that's not likely to change until next year.  There's little point in such a small stub hanging around for that long. Arrowned (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Arrowned. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I know quite well all of this. My entire point is that the only independent, cited coverage of the game so far that provides the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" is the IGN source with its speculation; this is the core of what constitutes notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (undent) What, is he referring to the IGN speculation? If so, then, yes, he is mistaken, as that one does constitute a secondary source. However, it's nowhere near significant enough alone to establish real-world context and therefore notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's clearly notable and what we have is a decent referenced stub that can only grow. I don't buy the argument that this won't change until next year; developers and publishers give out teaser information in interviews all the time as part of the normal hyping process. Then again, this could probably be located in the series page and serve the same purpose without much harm, but we'll just end up recreating this page later (possibly without the benefit of its history information). &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ive had this discussion under the exact same circumstances regarding Dragon Quest X initially i felt a merge into the main series article was appropriate but concensus pointed out to me that the article would be re created anyway if it were deleted shortly. The main fact of not deleting this article is that the game is confirmed and even though no additional details exist beyond that it 'exists' is seemingly enough for the internet to establish its notability. Secondary sources pick these up like crazy establishing notability basically because the topic is sought out information and popular. Which is why the page is likely to be re created anyway if it were to be deleted. Additionally Movies that are not in principal photography (WP:NFF) generally warrent deletion based on simplified wiki guidlines, however; a more popular movie will again establish notability with secondary sources. I think unless this movie guidline spreads to video games as well theres no justification to delete the article. If I am missing anything crucial here like a policy im unaware of please inform me, thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Zelda (series) until there is a title and a release date/window. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - one can't build an article on press releases and speculation. Marasmusine (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - What, exactly, is the rationale for deletion here? I can't find one. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no rationale for deleting the page. The game has been confirmed by Miyamoto, and official artwork has been made. Keep the page for now, when the game has been given a title, merge all relevant information into the new article. ScienceApe (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The rationale for deleting the page is due to the lack of reliable sources; the only real-world content present at the moment to establish notability is a few news articles and some baseless speculation, all of which make this a stub and can be comfortably merged into The Legend of Zelda (series). The mere fact that the game has been confirmed doesn't necessarily justify an article for it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Gamespot and IGN have confirmed the game from Miyamoto, creator of the Legend of Zelda series. Both are reliable sources. ScienceApe (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that; aside from all these confirmed details about the game, though, which are all regurgitations of primary sources such as the details provided to journalists by Miyamoto, there's little independent sourcing to show real-world significance. Unless these secondary sources which are currently cited actually provide any independent insight onto the topic being covered, they show little such real-world significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gamespot and IGN are independent, and reliable. The game has been confirmed for development. That is all that is necessary for an article, the confirmed game is notable. ScienceApe (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now into a relevant sub-section of The Legend of Zelda (series). Note that this is just for the time being, and I'm sure in the near future this tentative game will have its own article.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – (edit conflict) This has already been mentioned in the Zelda series article, so merging or redirection would not make sense. Otherwise, unlike the other games announced at E3, all the sources tell us is that Nintendo is making another Zelda game and that Shigeru Miyamoto has confirmed it. The rest of the content presented is only speculative or is based on Miyamoto's speculations about the direction of the game. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once more information comes, such as a name, a more definite release date, and more concrete non-speculative details about the game, then it could be spun out of the Zelda series article. MuZemike 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into The Legend of Zelda (series). Currently, there's nothing in the article that isn't covered adequately in the main one.  The information isn't covered to an extent or depth that warrants a new article.  Merging with The Legend of Zelda (series) will allow editors to adequately update information as time goes on, eventually expanding it into its own article.  Wikipedia's purpose isn't to hold an ever-increasing amount of placeholders ~ Amory (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a new Zelda game and a page for the game will be created in short order anyway. And if it's really coming in 2010, as Miyamoto has said, Nintendo will be announcing a lot more very soon. Possibly at TGS in the fall. KingJFS 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think it has potential for expansion in the future is irrelevant; WP:CRYSTAL, we should be dealing with what is available at present, and there's currently no indication at present that such information will come in the near future. It's coming in 2010, so the significant real-world coverage will likely come by then, at which point there will likely be a justification for an article. We don't keep article on an arbitrary basis that sources may one day turn up for them. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply in this case because the game doesn't actually have to ever come out, it just has to be confirmed, and be notable. See the articles on Super Mario 128, Starfox 2, and Duke Nukem Forever. None of these games were ever released, but they are notable regardless. If the game were canceled at this very moment, the fact that a Zelda Wii game was going to come out is interesting enough to warrant an article especially with official artwork depicting Link with a new character. I agree that there isn't a lot of information right now, but the amount of information currently available is enough for an article. ScienceApe (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between this article and those: they are all covered in significant detail by secondary sources. All we have for this article are an interview or two and a few confirmed details from E3, and there is no indication that the article will develop anywhere beyond a stub any time soon. To put it into perspective, if there's no chance, with the sources that currently exist, that the article will develop to WP:FA or WP:GA quality, Wikipedia probably shouldn't have an article on it. Certainly, with all the sources so far equating to a stub and no indication that the article can develop beyond that, there is little justification for this to be separate from the series article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I think there's enough information for an article. There are several sources cited right now. I don't believe the argument "the article has to develop into WP:FA quality" is criteria for wikipedia to have an article on it. As I mentioned before, even if no other information is ever released, the fact that this game was going to come out, and there's artwork to prove its existence and statements made by Miyamoto, is interesting and notable enough to warrant an article. See, Van Buren (Fallout 3) which was never finished or released. There's very little information on the title other than a rather brief plot of what the game was supposed to be about. There's only one secondary source (the other source cited has no information on Van Buren really), but the source is reliable. The article is still notable since the topic is interesting and notable. ScienceApe (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have stated, no amount of confirmations, statements, released artwork, or other information on Nintendo's part makes a subject notable. It needs secondary sources which "rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." This article cites no such claims, and therefore fails to show notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the subject is already notable. The confirmations, statements, released artwork, and other information is what makes an article. A new Zelda game is notable regardless of your arguments. I have already pointed out the secondary sources. They are not primary sources as you seem to insist on claiming. Gamespot and IGN are independently verifiable. ScienceApe (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me cite WP:PSTS again; "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." I see absolutely no such material cited in the article in question, and only regurgitations by secondary sources of content originally provided by primary sources. As WP:PSTS says, "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident." This is exactly what the secondary sources used in this article are doing; it is the independent insight on a subject that makes secondary sources useful for sourcing an article, not their mere ability to take information provided by Nintendo, Miyamoto, etc. and write it up in their own words. In essence, Wikipedia articles shouldn't just state what their subject is but how it is significant, and this one fails to do so. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * http://wii.ign.com/articles/992/992063p1.html Verifiable secondary source. You're just paddling up against a lot of evidence and sources here. ScienceApe (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing how this qualifies as "Significant coverage" per the WP:GNG. The presence of a bit of independent speculation in a couple of reputed, reliable sources still, as is evident by this article's size, does not constitute significant coverage. Frankly, if all the article can do to assert its subject's real-world context is cite a couple of speculative titbits from IGN and GameSpot, then it's not doing a whole lot to show its subject's significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't your argument. Your argument was, "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." The source I cited provides interpretive, analytic, and evaluative claims, and it is reliable and credible. Your argument was that you didn't see examples of such material cited in the article in question. I have just provided such examples, so the argument you have brought up has been refuted. The signficant coverage criteria was already explained to you. As has been pointed out several times, numerous sites have covered this game including, but not limited to Gamespot, IGN, Kotaku, Gamingtarget, gonintendo, and n-europe. ScienceApe (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only real-world context this article shows is a brief sentence or two along the lines of "This has led some to speculate that the female character...". How exactly does this qualify as significant real-world coverage? If the only thing secondary sources can extract out of the subject at present is a bit of arbitrary speculation, there's little basis on which real-world context can be shown. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe there is sufficient information and coverage for an article. Numerous websites have covered this game as I have pointed out, and there is enough information for an article. Your points have been refuted, you are just jumping from argument to argument at this point. You argued on the merit of WP:CRYSTAL, and I refuted that argument. You asked for secondary sources, I pointed them out to you. You argued that, "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.", and I provided such a source. ScienceApe (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't cited numerous sites, you've cited one, in which the only independent coverage and insight into the game is some vague speculation. "numerous sites have covered this game including, but not limited to Gamespot, IGN, Kotaku, Gamingtarget, gonintendo, and n-europe" does nothing to prove your case, as you have not directly cited what you are referring to. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I cited them, I said I pointed them out to you. Your argument was, "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." and I provided a source that addresses that issue. If you want to classify the IGN's thoughts as "vague speculation" that's your choice, but it fits the criteria you were asking for whether you like it or not. Actually, numerous videogame websites covering the game DOES justify an article as they are secondary sources. The article cites these sources where appropriate. Read the article, then check the source cited yourself. That's how you verify citations. ScienceApe (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with The Legend of Zelda (series), there is some important info in this article that should be kept. But I don't think we know enough about the game yet to merit it's own article. If we do keep it though I don't think this is the best title, it's not "untitled" we just don't know the title yet. Most Zelda fans call it "Zelda Wii". BUC (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no info on the game other than it exists, 1 piece of concept art, and that it MAY use Wii MotionPlus (if MotionPlus sells enough copies).  TJ   Spyke   21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Negative. There are ample sources cited in the article that indicates that the game very much does exist, and is in development. ScienceApe (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He didn't deny either of those things. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I misread. But as for the user's point, I do believe there is enough information on this game to warrant an article. The article is properly cited with reliable secondary sources. ScienceApe (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument was already covered. Please read the arguments made above.
 * I've read both arguments and I saw nothing to solidly suggest that this article isn't a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL because the game doesn't have to ever come out. If the game was canceled right now, the fact that there was going to be a new Zelda game for the Wii is notable. Super Mario 128 never came out, but it's still a notable topic that deserves an article. ScienceApe (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Super Mario 128 has significant coverage in secondary sources (to say nothing of the primary ones), something this article lacks entirely. There is no indication that the article will be expanded (via sources) any time soon. In fact, I'd dare say the subject currently fails WP:N. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Not anymore than this article TBH. Just brief vague statements by Miyamoto, and not much else. See, Van Buren (Fallout 3) which was never finished or released. There's very little information on the title other than a rather brief plot of what the game was supposed to be about. There's only one secondary source (the other source cited has no information on Van Buren really), but the source is reliable. The article is still notable since the topic is interesting and notable. ScienceApe (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A topic being interesting and allegedly notable does not make a given topic notable per WP:N in the least, mainly because, as others have told you a few different times already, notability is not inherited. Regardless of how few sources Super Mario 128 has, it still has enough to pass the notability guidelines, this article does not. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't your argument. Your argument was that this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, so I addressed that concern. The game is not a violation because the game never has to come out. It's already notable enough to deserve an article. Notability was established by the coverage the game has received in independent, reliable sources that are already cited in the article. So yes, this article has enough to pass notability guidelines even if the game were canceled now. ScienceApe (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was replying to your argument (why do you keep trying to turn things around?). Notability is established by primary and secondary sources. One of the the two primary sources is nothing but conjecture and there are no secondary sources, therefore this article fails the notability guidelines (I have amended my !vote to reflect this). It fails WP:CRYSTAL due to the fact that, without being able to pass WP:N, the nature of the game is speculative at best. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you abandoned your original argument and jumped to another that has already been discussed at length. Notability has already been established by a wide variety of sources. You also missed the point where I said speculation or conjecture is allowed if it is made by a reliable source, and isn't original research by wikipedia users. "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." so yes the speculation is allowed if it is made by a reliable source like IGN. ScienceApe (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is only exhibited by IGN so far, as all other sources present nothing other than repetition of primary-source content and therefore constitute primary sources themselves. A brief statement saying "IGN has speculated that so-and-so might be so-and-so" is far from enough to establish significant real-world coverage. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you finally concede notability has been exhibited in a reliable source like IGN. The other sources are not primary sources no matter how many times you repeat it. They aren't. A primary source would be Nintendo's website or Miyamoto's website. Not Gamespot, not go nintendo, not gamingtarget, etc. ScienceApe (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been stating all along that IGN is the only secondary source provided; all others are "very close to an event" as per WP:PSTS as they all present content such as confirmed details, etc. as provided from primary sources such as Miyamoto, and not the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" necessary to constitute secondary sources. It is not merely being on a site such as IGN, GameSpot, etc. which makes a news article constitute a secondary source, but the content it contains, and very little has been shown to exist so far that could show real-world significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if what you are saying is true, Jelly Soup has just said a Primary source is needed anyway. So therefore, this article contains both secondary and primary sources, both of which are necessary for an article. If you believe the amount of information present is simply insufficient, I would recommend that you change your entire argument so that your objection to this article is only on that merit, and no other since we have covered the rest, and this article is not in violation of any notability criteria other than what you perceive as insufficient information. ScienceApe (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, primary sources are necessary, but they do pretty much nothing to establish notability; when the only shown real-world significance of a topic is a bit of speculation as exhibited by IGN, that does little to satisfy the "significant coverage" criteria of the GNG. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You already said that. What I told you to do was to change your rationale for deletion since you conceded that both Primary and Secondary sources do in fact exist. If you classify the analytical points made by the secondary source as "speculation", then I must point out that you are being disingenuous to readers to wikipedia policy as speculation is indeed allowed if made by credible sources. Your only valid argument is the amount of information currently available. I recommend that you end this line of discussion and adjust your rationale for deletion. ScienceApe (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My rationale is based around the fact that the only secondary information provided is the speculation from IGN, which is insufficient to constitute "significant coverage" as per the GNG. I'm quite aware of the existence of the primary sources, which are irrelevant to notability, and this secondary source, and it is my rationale that the speculative article by IGN alone does not show sufficient real-world significance. The amount of content is a very valid argument and relates completely to the notability guideline. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If primary sources are irrelevant to notability, why did Jelly Soup say ". Now then, if the aforementioned link is NOT a primary source, but a secondary one, they we are short one primary source and the article STILL fails WP:N". If he is mistaken on policy I would like you to clarify that. ScienceApe (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I didn't abandon anything, I was replying to your comment which was mainly about notability and not my !vote. Secondly, please remain civil. Thirdly, "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source." This article lacks those. This is beside the point that all of the primary sources are repeating the same speculative information over and over again. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you make an argument, you have to address the rebuttle, not jump to another argument that was already covered. Your second comment is without merit. Stating that you are jumping arguments is not being incivil. The article does not lack "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source". This article, http://wii.ign.com/articles/992/992063p1.html, covers that concern. And again, you are mischaracterizing the citations as primary sources when they aren't. And again, you are arguing against speculative comments when I have already pointed out that they are perfectly legitimate when they come from a credible secondary source. ScienceApe (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did address the rebuttle, which challenged my claim of CYRSTAL with one of Notability. It is incivil and in bad faith to try to use your argument to derail the discussion (and I further request that we get off this line of discussion, as it's not helping in either direction). Now then, if the aforementioned link is NOT a primary source, but a secondary one, they we are short one primary source and the article STILL fails WP:N and, thus, WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You changed your argument to that of notability instead of WP:CRYSTAL. No it isn't, I was pointing out a logical fallacy you were making which was derailing the discussion. If you request that, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, nor retorted. The Primary source is Miyamoto himself. If you don't buy that, I challenge you to tell me what the primary source is for Super Mario 128. ScienceApe (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to meet notability standards and seems like a dumping ground of links to sites like IGN with very little information available. It wasn't even mentioned at Nintendo's press conference. The concept art is the only major release we have on it and that should not be the basis of an encyclopedic article.Iupolisci (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The game meets notability standards because it's a new Zelda game. That's notable. "Dumping ground of links" just sounds like a pejorative way of saying, properly citing the article. That's how you write good articles, but making citations. The game was discussed during a round table meeting with Miyamoto himself. And he discussed the game and provided some information on the title. ScienceApe (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, significant, independent coverage in reliable sources makes a subject notable, not merely being a Zelda game. Notability isn't inherited. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply because a Wikipedia page links to external sources does not make it notable. I do not think that there is enough information available for this article to be justified.Iupolisci (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. I said it's notable because it's a new Zelda game. A new Zelda game is notable, and I think there is enough information for an article. ScienceApe (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, notability isn't inherited. Just because the Zelda series is notable doesn't mean each game which constitutes it is notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, each game that constitutes the Zelda series is indeed notable. We have an article on every Zelda game made, a new Zelda for the Wii is extremely notable. ScienceApe (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no we simply don't. It is the presence of independent coverage in reliable sources that makes a subject notable, not being part of a series, and to justify a bit of arbitrary speculation and a few trivial primary-sourced details as constituting "extreme" notability makes absolutely no sense by any standard. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No we do. We have an article on every Zelda game ever created. You seem to be ignoring our previous discussions and repeating the same arguments over and over again. We already went over this. This game does have independent coverage in reliable sources, so why do you keep bringing up that argument? ScienceApe (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. Being a Zelda game is not a factor in whether a game should have a standalone article. And as I've already stated, there isn't enough independent coverage; most of the sources cited merely regurgitate press releases and minor confirmed details, and provide no "opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" as per WP:PSTS. It is not merely being IGN, GameSpot, etc. that constitutes a secondary source, but the content it contains, and the only source shown to contain the necessary independent insight so far is IGN with some arbitrary speculation. That alone is far from enough to constitute "significant coverage" per the GNG. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You just proved that every Zelda game has an article. Thank you for taking the time to link those articles. ScienceApe (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you were arguing that we have a separate article for every Zelda game; those are examples of where that is not the case. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. Please specify where I ever said we have a separate article for every Zelda game? I in no way said "separate". ScienceApe (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If so, why keep this as a separate article when there are similar games such as those I linked to which have a similar, even higher, amount of content yet still do not constitute separate articles? If the LCD and CD-i games do not have what it takes to constitute separate articles for each game, then neither does this. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why keep a separate article for Super Mario 128, when Mario Bros and Donkey Kong Game and Watch articles have an even higher amount of content yet still do not constitute separate articles? ScienceApe (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mario Bros. does have a separate article, and I can't even find the DK G&W article. I don't see how such games are relevant, anyway. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the Game and Watch version of Mario Bros and Donkey Kong. I think I made that pretty obvious with my previous comment. The relevance is that I was pointing out the faulty logic you were using. Super Mario 128 still exists as a separate article even though the Game and Watch versions of Mario Bros and Donkey Kong do not have separate articles. ScienceApe (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * None of this is relevant to the topic in question. This is an AfD discussion, where we discuss a specific article, not my interpretation of logic. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are now sidetracking the discussion. The issue at hand is the logic of your argument, not your "interpretation of logic". You brought up an argument that was not logical, and I brought up a counter example to prove that it was not logical. It is therefore extremely relevant to the AfD discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're discussing this article and nothing else. The fact that other stuff exists cannot be used to make a judgement relating to the notability of this article, so whether or not there's a hole in my logic pertaining to comparing this with Mario articles is irrelevant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Point individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place  Marlith  (Talk)   05:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Meaning? For one, I'd definitely say there's no "almost certain"-ty here. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no certainty that the game will be released, but there is certainty that new information will be released either providing more insight into the game, or that the game has been canceled. In either case, both constitutes information, so yes there is certainty that information will be released in the future regarding the topic one way or another. And as I said before, the game never has to come out. It's still notable even if the game was canceled. ScienceApe (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see where this "certainty" is, unless it's just your apparently arbitrary opinion. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just explained why there is certainty. ScienceApe (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, "I don't see where this "certainty" is"—as far as I can tell, no sources have stated any certainty to release new information. A mere supposition on your part is meaningless. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat. " but there is certainty that new information will be released either providing more insight into the game, or that the game has been canceled." Either situation counts as information whether you like it or not, so yes there is certainty that new information will be released. ScienceApe (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So there's no chance that either of those things might not happen? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "almost certain to take place" is not the same as "no chance". ScienceApe (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I was saying. I said that there's a possibility that information either will or will not be released in the future, and no real indication as to either way, so to say there's an "almost certain" chance of info being released in the future is completely baseless. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't know what "almost certain to take place" means then. The 2012 Presidential Election is almost certain to take place. In your words, "Is there no chance that might not happen?". We could be hit by a comet and we could all die. Or a nuclear war could break out. But it's unlikely, so it still fits the criteria of "almost certain to take place". You're trying to change what policy is, and then argue how this article doesn't fit your new non-existent policy. ScienceApe (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The US election has taken place as defined by the constitution (I think) every four years for the last two hundred or so years; that is not the case for every video game in development in terms of receiving news regarding additional information or cancellation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed my point. It is indeed possible that the election won't take place, as I pointed out. Your argument was, "So there's no chance that either of those things might not happen?". So using your logic, we shouldn't have an article on the 2012 presidential election. However, Wikipedia's policy is not "So there's no chance that either of those things might not happen?", it's "almost certain to take place". So your rebuttle argument which stated, "So there's no chance that either of those things might not happen?" is not valid. ScienceApe (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is, the 2012 election is forecast and scheduled to happen at a specific date, and has happened consistently for the past two centuries, while absolutely no indication of future details to be revealed for this Zelda game has been given by anyone yet. Anyway, I've been arguing more on a basis relating to WP:N than WP:CRYSTAL, so this doesn't really seem relevant. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are dealing with your argument of "So there's no chance that either of those things might not happen?". Your argument was simply not valid, so yes my rebuttal is entirely relevant because it's dealing with your argument directly and pointing out that it's not a valid argument. ScienceApe (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "I've been arguing more on a basis relating to WP:N than WP:CRYSTAL". The chance of future info appearing, no matter how likely, cannot be used to show notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with The Legend of Zelda (series), the games section pretty much covers everything we already know. Magiciandude (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd say merge, but there's nothing here that isn't in the series article already except the IGN speculation, which is interesting to my inner Zelda fanboy but ultimately runs afoul of WP:SPECULATION, even if it is from a RS. It's a tough call, because 1) this is probably as close to a sure thing as you can get in video games and 2) (caution: OR) if it does get canceled, the series is high-profile enough that the cancellation would probably be notable a la Star Fox 2 or Super Mario 128. At this point, though, all we can say about the game is that Miyamoto confirmed the project's existence, it's being developed for the Wii, and it's targeted for 2010, and that's not enough to justify a separate article. No objection to recreation when more details are available. BryanG (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speculation is indeed permitted as long as it's cited from a reliable source. ScienceApe (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in very specific cases, but this isn't one in my opinion. Really, both refs are pretty much engaging in baseless speculation or reporting "other (unnamed, and therefore of unclear notability) people think this" on a single piece of concept art that may or may not make the final cut - I'd expect something more substantial before I'd put in in an article. Also, point 8 of WP:VGSCOPE discourages inclusion of speculation in video game articles. BryanG (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question So a preview is the best possible source for information to affirm the need of a full article on a video game, right? Whereas a developer roundtable and concept art like this dosen't provide enough information to warrant an article?  Marlith  (Talk)   15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all primary information which doesn't contribute to notability; the mere existence of details like those from Miyamoto or the concept art isn't enough to justify an article on the subject, and secondary sources which provide independent coverage on the subject should be cited to show its real-world significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. I am considering changing my opinion to Merge as of now.  Marlith  (Talk)   15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hapia failed to inform you of the secondary source which I provided that does indeed provide independent coverage on the subject, and he admitted to it. Hapia, right now you are being disingenuous to other wikipedia users, and misleading them. ScienceApe (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You might like to read WP:AGF, then, because that argument is both irrelevant and offensive. This is an AfD discussion, where we discuss articles, and arguments about other editor's editing habits are completely unwelcome. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When you are making arguments to convince others of your viewpoints, then yes I am well within my right to point out misleading, and disingenuous statements you are making. You failed to inform Marlith of the secondary source I cited, and told him that no secondary sources exist, when you already conceded before that there was one. You made a very misleading statement, and I felt it was necessary to point it out. ScienceApe (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So Marlith can only read my arguments? He can read this AfD for himself, thank you, and certainly doesn't rely on me for information. Accusing me of deliberately trying to mislead other people when I am trying my best to stay both civil and argue my points within the policies and guidelines is nothing but bad faith. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I did not rely only on Haipa's response to my question, by rather by reading through the provided links and the rest of the AFD. While I did create the article, greater knowledge of the opinions and thoughts of others led me to reconsider my choice. As of now, Gamespot and IGN are both primary sources as they were the only ones present at that miyamoto roundtable.  Marlith  (Talk)   04:47, 13 June 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.