Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Gods

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 - cheating is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Gods

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Appears to be a hoax or seriously doubtful future possibility. 22 unique hits on google, none serious. [1] Deizio talk 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Possibly redirect to Ragnarök though there may be other mythologies employing this motive. Could be short article, once. Pavel Vozenilek 11:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Among the other mythologies is ancient Greek: battles of Titans, such battle is central theme to the Aztec religion. Pavel Vozenilek 12:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Are we talking about the same article? The subject of the article in question is an unrealeased computer game, not a mythology. For the purposes of this process the subject matter of the game is unimportant. Deizio talk 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Ragnarök is a "battle of Gods". The gane is absolutely irrelevant, IMO. Pavel Vozenilek 22:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This seems to be a hoax, probably an April Fool's Day joke from some gaming magazine. The only substantial links I can find on this is an invalid MySpace page and Wikipedia itself. —dustmite 16:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I am part of the art development team for this project. How would the administrator want it proven that this is real? Look at the history of this page. It has been vandalized almost every couple days. Some people feel threatened by this game and do not want it to come out, so it will be attacked often. It is an idea that people love or hate fanatically but it is not being made to upset people though we know that will be hated by insecure belief systems. It is being made to educate and promote free speech, an equal forum, and that people need to chill out in general and laugh. The attention negatively or positively proves its relevance. —the preceding comment is by 68.5.137.93 - 19:24, 10 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

• Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about future events or products should assert the notability of said topic. As this is not a sequel to a notable game or a release by an established software house that makes the burden of proof especially important to establish. Reviews in mainstream gaming publications (PS3fanboy appears to fall someway short of that) would be a good start. You can find more info at WP:NOT, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:RS and WP:CITE. It may well be that this topic falls short of the standards demanded by Wikipedia and you should wait until the game has been released and enjoyed commercial success. As noted above, the subject matter and anecdotal opinions of unknown individuals are unimportant in the process of establishing suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Deizio talk 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Delete it if you want; you are the administrator but there are more than dozens of unreleased games on wikipedia that are not sequels.

If a game is formally announced this disclaimer should be sufficient: {{future game}} The Battle of the Gods staff is made of ex-Blizzard, ex-EA, ex-Quicksilver Games, ex-Rockstar SD, ex-Interplay members. I think this game is something people will want to know about from an objective source. —the preceding comment is by 68.5.137.93 - 22:18, 10 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts! *2nd vote by anon account on this debate Deizio talk 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete until we can verify the material from reliable sources. As Deiz says, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and even the makers of the game admitted last month that "completion of the game [...] could take years". [2] We can afford to wait a little while to have an article on it. William Pietri 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- X399 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not even remotely associated with Japan. The developers are American. ColourBurst 00:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice. BTW, the developers should just bite the bullet and put in Allah, not like Westboro and Catholics are gonna cut you any slack for putting in God and Mary. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment to Danny Lilithborne: The article and the disclaimer states changes are inevitable. The player character list is not the full list, just what's been formally announced. Has nothing to do with he relevance of the article though. Phantumm 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unrecoverable crystal-ballery. The article's defenders make interesting claims that are simply not verifiable. Come back when/if they are. My Alt Account 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like an Advertisment to me of a game whose future is unknown. -- Marwatt 18:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I believe the spirit of the rule is more important than the letter of it. Duke Nukem Forever is an unreleased game and Tapeworm (band) is a permanently defunct band project, but they are projects I have inquired about on Wikipedia. If there's an interest it should stay and there is. Phantumm 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with interest. It has to do with verifiability. Duke Nukem has a whole array of references, but this article has two references, one of which is a blog and the other, a myspace site. ColourBurst 23:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Those are not blogs, there are 2 reputable interactive entertainment news articles not counting the internal company site with the classified password posted and active myspace account. More has come and will come. Duke Nukem Forever production was announced since '97 (9 years ago). Battle of the Gods was announced early this year. Of course there will be over 9 times more refferences. The official beginning of production of both is unknown. And Tapeworm (band)? 68.5.137.93 - 09:47, 13 September 2006 UTC:

• The topic here is what? verifiability. the fact that it exists on wikepedia is verifiable, correct? now if deleted, will the website, myspace acct., and current articles be deleted as well.....nope. the existence of a game in development will still be current, but wikepedia/battle of the gods will not. keep your sight/site current. to be a "doubting thomas" does not change the fact that this game is in development and has generated interest. furthermore, it is "crystal ballery" to claim that the game is not in development. but your crystal ball is cloudy. i prefer the magic eight-ball myself and my sources say no, do not delete. Zee fuggernaut 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• — Possible single purpose account: Zee fuggernaut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..

• I suspect you are a little inexperienced with the standards for content inclusion on Wikipedia. Indeed, your contribution record indicates that all of seven of your edits have been to this AfD (5) and the page in question (2). I would also be inclined to suspect you are very closely acquainted with User:Phantumm and the anon account above. Generally speaking the opinions of users with that kind of pattern generally hold little or no weight in debates like this. I recommend broadening your experience of editing and would suggest that if you're really keen on this that you edit the article in question to bring it inline with WP standards (links above). Interested parties come to AfD trying to save their creation more than you might think, and they all find out that the same rules apply. Deizio talk 17:50, 13 September 2006 (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.