Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Nukem Trilogy

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 due to the nominator withdrawing the nomination. MuZemike (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Nukem Trilogy[edit]

~~Article is about a game to be released next year (see WP:CBALL). In addition, the content has been copied verbatim from the reference. MuZemike (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I WITHDRAW the nomination; I nominated the article in very poor judgment. MuZemike (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question? Is there anything on this page that is unverfied or speculation if not crystalballism does not apply. That guideline does not say anything about not having articles abotu unreleased products and articles about unreleased games are common. This is also from a notiable series has a verified existence and has been covered by IGN. At worst this should either be trimmed if there is too much speculation or merged with the series article. In short, deletion is unnecessary here. --76.66.189.245 (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sole article is an interview with the CEO of Apogee software, and the interview is entirely speculative in nature, not to mention bordering on a lack of NPOV. MuZemike (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an interview with the CEO about the game they're making speculative? Nifboy (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Plagurism is a serious concern on Wikipedia. Plus the fact that a quote was copied into the article means that the article is left with a very poor structure. This is a difficult case. I would say merge into a series article until further information becomes avalible, but an article covering the Duke Nukem series does not seem to exist. This article also meets the criteria for speedy deletion (G12). I will withdraw my position if the article is rewritten and the offending material is removed immediately. --.:Alex :. 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offending section removed. Focus on the article's potential for an article, not its current state. Is the subject notable? Can it be a good article? I don't know if it's too early in the game to call this one. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to confirmed games. The publisher's press release can be found here. Nifboy (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I couldn't find it. MuZemike (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, press releases do not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), as the said release is not independent of the subject. The release involves two companies with a vested interest in the game (i.e. can be considered self-publicity). Hence, it is not independent. MuZemike (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence the interview and a few other sources , and I don't doubt more sources will come in as details are released (I mean, the game was just announced a week ago), even if it takes a few years. As an example, the article on Dragon Age was created back when it was announced in September 2004, and only recently have more details about it surfaced. Deleting this or that page now is counterproductive. Nifboy (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me, that's actually a fairly convincing argument that the article should have been deleted and salted until last week. For the first 3-4 years that the article existed on WP, it served no purpose other than as a free advertisement. Just because it isn't counterproductive doesn't mean that it is productive. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I said before, I would suggest merging this into a series article until much more information becomes avaliable, then the old article can be recreated. But as a series article does not exist in this instance and that the copyrighted material has been removed I think retaining this article is the best viable option. --.:Alex :. 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Be sure to do a google search before supporting an AfD nomination guys and gals. This was big news at E3, and has been covered pretty much everywhere. IGn, Kotaku, Joystiq, Gamasutra 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. And then some more with Nintendo World 6, Tom's games 7, Shack news 8, Digital Trends 9, CVG 10, and even the Sydney Morning Hearld got in on the action 11. Did anyone do a google search? Did anyone read any E3 press releases? MuZemike Remember being a good wikipedia editor is not about deleting content, its about improving it. Icemotoboy (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to bring up that Duke Nukem Forever is a pretty good example of why first-party claims are not reliable. Just because a known developer or publisher claims to be making a game doesn't necessarily mean that the game is notable right off the bat. Strictly speaking, a subject needs to be notable before the article is created, but the community tends to be lenient for recognizable names. Parroting of press releases does not constitute significant coverage, but I haven't read every single article about it so I can't say if that's the only kind of article being written about this game. I did read the Joystiq article, which was actually a bit sarcastic in its treatment. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This game has been confirmed by good old Apogee. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2008 (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.