Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upcoming Super Smash Bros. video game
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. There are no calls for the immediate deletion of this article beyond the nominator, and discussions regarding the merger or redirection of this article can be done outside of the AfD pages. The article is well-referenced, which certainly helps. Also, the subject appears to be evolving (with the most recent media coverage from a week ago), so I suspect there will be additional updates and rewrites in the coming weeks. A somewhat bold non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Upcoming Super Smash Bros. video game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". Before the inevitable chorus of "But is passes WP:GNG or "but it's notable!" arises, please note that WP:N applies only if the material is not excluded by WP:NOT. —Kww(talk) 15:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there was a dubious NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Smash Bros. 4 that I hadn't noticed. That this has been persisting for years under multiple names is strengthens my case. There's nothing in here that is reasonably certain to happen.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you possibly call that "dubious"? There's a clear consensus there based on policy. It was 10 to 2 Keep to Delete, with many of the Keeps citing it meeting the GNG due to coverage in reliable third party sources. You can disagree, but it's out of line to suggest that it wasn't done properly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all out of line. The GNG didn't apply, so keeps based on them should have been discarded during the close analysis. Not appreciating issues like that is one of the reasons that NAC of anything with any hint of controversy is inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything doesn't apply, it's NOT, or at least the parts you're citing. There's one rumor, presented as such, for the purpose of preventing misinformation, and can easily be removed at this point, and the information extends well beyond just it's announcement. NOT is more applicable to articles like this, where it was unanimously agreed it should be a redirect, which it is right now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no verifiable facts in the article beyond first person statements from one of the creators about what his intentions are, and we have no way of judging whether those intentions will ever be real. Just because a creator spreads rumours as a part of a marketing campaign doesn't keep them from being rumours.—Kww(talk) 18:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we reading the same article? What rumors are being spread by the game's creator? The only "rumor" was the part of the subtitle Universe, which did not in fact come from the creator. There is no other "rumor" in the article. The content in the article ranges from how the creator wants to change the direction or approach to the series, or how Nintendo is teaming up with a new company, Namco Bandai for the first time. It's first party commentary reported upon by many, many reliable third party sources. It's the type of commentary that frequently makes up "Development" sections in good quality video game articles. It doesn't matter if the "intentions will ever be real", it's that the topic is reported on by third party sources. As I said below in another comment, I direct you to Chrono Break, which isn't even a game, but merely a "patent", which has been brought to Good Article status. It's notable as an idea. There's precedent for this type of article if the coverage is there, and it is most certainly is in this case. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This wouldn't be a problem as a development section for something that actually existed. It's a problem because someone's statement about what his intentions are for a product is simply a rumour about the final content of the product. You have no way to tell if his participation in a marketing effort reflects reality.—Kww(talk) 23:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Existence" isn't an issue when its something that has been officially announced, and it has been officially announced, especially when a giant corporation like Nintendo has their president, Satoru Iwata, discuss it. Something like this is pretty certain to exist, and as I've said multiple times, even if it never ends up existing, it'd still have enough coverage debating it's existence to have an article, like Chrono Break. Furthermore, you're really misusing the word "rumor". The game's creators discussing what they plan to do with the series does not qualify as a rumor. Nor does anything else in the article. (Minus the expendable Universe sentence.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This wouldn't be a problem as a development section for something that actually existed. It's a problem because someone's statement about what his intentions are for a product is simply a rumour about the final content of the product. You have no way to tell if his participation in a marketing effort reflects reality.—Kww(talk) 23:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we reading the same article? What rumors are being spread by the game's creator? The only "rumor" was the part of the subtitle Universe, which did not in fact come from the creator. There is no other "rumor" in the article. The content in the article ranges from how the creator wants to change the direction or approach to the series, or how Nintendo is teaming up with a new company, Namco Bandai for the first time. It's first party commentary reported upon by many, many reliable third party sources. It's the type of commentary that frequently makes up "Development" sections in good quality video game articles. It doesn't matter if the "intentions will ever be real", it's that the topic is reported on by third party sources. As I said below in another comment, I direct you to Chrono Break, which isn't even a game, but merely a "patent", which has been brought to Good Article status. It's notable as an idea. There's precedent for this type of article if the coverage is there, and it is most certainly is in this case. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no verifiable facts in the article beyond first person statements from one of the creators about what his intentions are, and we have no way of judging whether those intentions will ever be real. Just because a creator spreads rumours as a part of a marketing campaign doesn't keep them from being rumours.—Kww(talk) 18:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything doesn't apply, it's NOT, or at least the parts you're citing. There's one rumor, presented as such, for the purpose of preventing misinformation, and can easily be removed at this point, and the information extends well beyond just it's announcement. NOT is more applicable to articles like this, where it was unanimously agreed it should be a redirect, which it is right now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all out of line. The GNG didn't apply, so keeps based on them should have been discarded during the close analysis. Not appreciating issues like that is one of the reasons that NAC of anything with any hint of controversy is inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you possibly call that "dubious"? There's a clear consensus there based on policy. It was 10 to 2 Keep to Delete, with many of the Keeps citing it meeting the GNG due to coverage in reliable third party sources. You can disagree, but it's out of line to suggest that it wasn't done properly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge encyclopedic content to Super Smash Bros. (series) and delete. Upcoming video games don't have specific guidelines, but WP:NFF sets out principles for feature films. A work in production is only notable if the production itself is notable, i.e. not if there's just a bunch of product announcements and rumors; otherwise info should go in the article on its subject matter or the relevant series/franchise. I don't see anything particularly interesting about this production: there is nothing of note that has attracted wide and in-depth media coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It was kept after the last nomination, and only more information has been added to it since then. There's reliable sources reporting on it. Meets the WP:GNG. The nomination refers to WP:NOT, but I'd like to point out that the article contains no rumors, and more than a mere product announcement. (EDIT: It appears one rumor is in there, the part about the name about it possibly being called SSB Universe, and that was only put in because people kept on trying to present it as fact. It was included to avoid the spread of misinformation, something that could probably even be removed at this point, since that rumor has died down. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd also like to point out that there is precedent for keeping articles such as this. See things like Kingdom Hearts III (AFD Result - Kept, (AFD Result - Kept) or Chrono Break. (Redirect proposal - Unanimously Opposed) Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also precedent the other direction. If memory serves, Brawl was treated within the context of the series rather than a separate page, until the game was much closer to release. Right now, we've no idea when or even if (even though first party sources say otherwise) the fourth installment will be released, and I think that makes it prime material for WP:FUTURE#5. --Izno (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't comment much on your anecdote because I don't know how much coverage was out there at whatever point in time you're referring to. I'm certainly aware of plenty instances where merging to the series article is relevant. Mario Kart Wii U is a great example, because very little is known beyond existence. I'd support merging that. But I find this article to be much more like Chrono Break, Kingdom Hearts 3, Star Wars Battlefront III, or Sonic X-treme, where, despite not being released, there's enough commentary from creators and third parties to warrant keeping them separate from their respective series page. (There's been consensus to keep on every one of those.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's gotten substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, even before we've gotten a single screenshot. There are no rumors in the article aside from the aforementioned "Universe" piece. Not to mention Iwata and Sakurai themselves have said that we'll be getting screens and/or a trailer at E3, so if it gets deleted, it's just going to go back up in a few months anyway. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: While there hasn't been any screenshots or video of the games, it's gotten substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, and it was previously nominated for deletion and kept. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Sergecross. It has significant coverage by third parties, so it meets the GNG. Jucchan (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:CRYSTAL, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." Exactly the case here. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It has already been proven to be notable and is almost certain to take place. ~satellizer~~talk~ 10:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Lugia. There isn't much of a point in deleting it now. Yellow1996 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Keeping in mind both WP:N and WP:NOT, this article should be treated in the context of the series as a whole as has been the standard for numerous other unreleased titles. Right now, I would judge it on the wrong side of WP:CRYSTAL. --Izno (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the purpose of merging it now, after maintaining it for two years, just to break it back out in a few months when it's revealed at E3. With a game of this magnitude, if people see it doesn't have it's own article, it's just going to be recreated over and over again, under different names in worse quality, by fans. I'd rather we keep this closely monitored, carefully worded, well-sourced version, to prevent that. Deleting it is just causing more unnecessary work on every level. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence is roundly trounced by WP:CRYSTAL and in fact is (one of) the reason(s) CRYSTAL exists.
Your second is predicated on a specious notion of "people" behavior and that they will act a certain way if the article does not exist (we have a protection policy [and in particular, WP:SALT ] for a reason, besides the fact that anyone so new to Wikipedia will not be able to create an article). As for recreation, we already have to do that, regardless of location of the material. The material can be just as closely monitored, worded, and sourced in the context of the series article as in its own space. That also avoids the problem presented by the fact that we don't know what the name of the game is, and for that reason alone I would argue in favor of WP:CRYSTAL over WP:N.
Lastly, I did not suggest that it should be deleted, only that it is conflict with a policy of the Wikipedia. A merge, without prejudice to a future unmerge, is certainly a compromise given that. --Izno (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the purpose of merging it now, after maintaining it for two years, just to break it back out in a few months when it's revealed at E3. With a game of this magnitude, if people see it doesn't have it's own article, it's just going to be recreated over and over again, under different names in worse quality, by fans. I'd rather we keep this closely monitored, carefully worded, well-sourced version, to prevent that. Deleting it is just causing more unnecessary work on every level. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL reads "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The content here is verifiable, and cited from reliable sources, so I don't see what the problem with CRYSTAL is. ~satellizer~~talk~ 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As Satellizer says, every single sentence in the article is verified by a reliable source. And as I've said above, even if the game was cancelled today, there'd be enough commentary to warrant an article. (Beyond what's available right now, let's be realistic here: When a game of this magnititude is cancelled, there's always endless additional coverage of the "What went wrong?" or "Was it just vaporware?" type of retrospective coverage, like with Sonic Xtreme or Super Mario 128. ) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply since with the exception of the universe subtitle (which could easily be removed without affecting article quality if deemed necessary) noting in the article is speculation.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As Satellizer says, every single sentence in the article is verified by a reliable source. And as I've said above, even if the game was cancelled today, there'd be enough commentary to warrant an article. (Beyond what's available right now, let's be realistic here: When a game of this magnititude is cancelled, there's always endless additional coverage of the "What went wrong?" or "Was it just vaporware?" type of retrospective coverage, like with Sonic Xtreme or Super Mario 128. ) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL reads "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The content here is verifiable, and cited from reliable sources, so I don't see what the problem with CRYSTAL is. ~satellizer~~talk~ 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.