Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelda 09


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Zelda 09

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

textbook violation of WP:CRYSTAL, I would suggest that it may be WP:HAMMERtime Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V - there's quite a lot on Google, but it's all rumours. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Definitely peering into the murky future here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Besides the fact that no one other than the article creator is calling the game "Zelda 09" (which is especially dumb since the game doesn't even have a estimated release date and most sites/magazines are using "The Legend of Zelda Wii, the only confirmed information on the game is that it will feature Link and will use the Wii MotionPlus controller. Everything else is speculation and wish-lists fans, way too early to even consider a article for the game.  TJ   Spyke   21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Whilst there is a Zelda game out this year, this ain't it. And the line "The only information released on it as of 11-12-09 is some concept art" is hardly worth an article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  22:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm on board with the WP:CRYSTAL view... and the fact that a game of this name never actually existed. Technically an essay like WP:HAMMER can't be used as an official reason given to back up an opinion as one user did above (though I commend the usage!). ...I should look into that further. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that we already had an AFD on this game at Articles for deletion/Untitled Zelda Project. We also have all the relevant info on the series page so a merge is not needed and since this is not a likely search term we also don't need to redirect it either.--76.66.189.141 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well. With an AfD precedent to delete, someone recreating it and it deleted again, and this still being almost an empty page, this is kind of solving itself. Ooh! It never went through a CSD tag/untag... but I'll admit that PROD was the better/safer choice to put on first even if it means this will sit here a week. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contrary to popular belief, we try not to run on crystal balls. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER --Teancum (talk) 01:56, 17 November 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.