Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titan (Blizzard Entertainment 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titan (Blizzard Entertainment project)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The entire article is about an unannounced video game based on speculation, heavily violating WP:FUTURE. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 17:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blizzard_Entertainment#Titles for now - Agreed, the game appears to have been heavily fueled by speculation, not absolute confirmation. Although the article claims the game started production in 2012, this is not confirming that the game will be released. As a result of this, I believe redirecting it may be better than deleting it, leaving the doors open for when the game may be officially released. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than speculation since the game has been confirmed multiple times and been in production for 4 years according to a recent source. I updated the article and removed any speculation (except for the line discussing speculation that was later confirmed). There is plenty of information sourced from RS. I also read WP:FUTURE much different than the nominator: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur". The project is notable regardless of success. A failed project can even become a featured article if given enough care.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Cptnono. - hahnch e n 19:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 02:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough sources to be found; such as those found in [1], [2], [3], and some others that can be easily found through most search engines. This article is not even breaching WP:FUTURE without a concensus made against this Article.--Bumblezellio (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has some excellent sources and all sketchy sources are easily rectified with the amount of information available. I'd doubt this article's ability to mime StarCraft: Ghost (per above) but there is enough material available to establish notability. I also disagree with the characterization of the article's content as speculation. Without a published retrospective, these types of RS are the most reliable history of a game development process. czar · · 17:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the section cited by SwisterTwister above. Under WP:CRYSTAL: "While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." In my view, this product announcement is too vague and its release too undetermined to warrant its own article, even though there's speculation in reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2012 (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.