Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers: Prime – The Game

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Prime – The Game

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

Breaches WP:CRYSTAL as this won't be published for another 6 months at least. Suggest userfy or incubate until a firm release date has been announced Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a well documented announcement. I'd say it has reached the threshold of notability despite the lack of a firm release date. --Daniel 18:32, 19 March 2012 (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) 23:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like good information considering it will be released 6 months from now, I see this as very reliable, and that is why I vote Keep. BigzMMA (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - brief coverage replete with quotes from the company which appear to be copied from press releases and in one of the sources specifically copies from the press release is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The game is being covered in any number of sources that WP:VG/S deems reliable. I know Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but come on, a game of such a huge franchise from a mega-corporation like Activision is going to get plenty of coverage anyways. But there's plenty of sources as is:

Agree with the sources that you have listed Serge, but I think part of the problem, and a factor in the nomination are the sources that are actually in the article now. I've just taken a quick look at them and I doubt that they would pass through the process at WP:VG/RS - X201 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the sources included ~~right now~~ as of it's AFD nomination were awful and may have lead to it's nomination, but per WP:BEFORE, it should have been looked up to see all the reliable sources that are out there. What's important is that there is the potential for it to meet the WP:GNG. All we have to do is rewrite the article with proper sources. (The info included so far, upon brief skimming, seems mostly correct, just done with unreliable sources that happened to have their facts straight, so it probably wouldn't take too much to clean up.) I could rewrite the article, if I have to, to illustrate my point that it should be kept, but I'd rather not, as I don't especially have any interest in Transformers and whatnot. The important thing is that the coverage is clearly out there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources included after I changed them, or before? - X201 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I hadn't noticed until a minute ago, that you had started to substitute in some of my sources and clean up the article. I was referencing the poor shape of the sources at the time of it's nomination, not criticizing the sources that I supplied and you put into the article. As such, I thought you were commenting on the article at the time of nomination as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect practically no useful information there. Everything can be added to the Transformers: Prime page. It can get recreated when the game is closer to release and there is more information available on it. JDDJS (talk) 16:51, 21 March 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still think we're better off with keeping it as a reliably sourced, well-written stub, than merging it back into the sloppy, sprawling Transformers: Prime article, which is a mess, and currently sourced almost entirely with actor credits from a fansite... Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 2 April 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, -Scottywong | spill the beans _ 15:41, 7 April 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.