Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicane (video 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicane (video game)

Prodded by User:RayaruB as Non-notable game that never came out of development ; deprodded by User:Kappa. The unrelenting use of the conditional tense here would seem to suggest that, while this might have merited an article had it ever actually been made, its actual lack of existence serves as an impediment to its encyclopedic value. Eusebeus 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Inappropriately deprodded by Kappa, and additionally for reasons provided by nom. Kuzaar 13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice for all the reasons stated above. -- Hirudo 13:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my prod. --RayaruB 13:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  c 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --blue520 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I wonder if Kappa has realized yet that him deprodding an article is becoming a redflag to the article's probable non-notability? RGTraynor 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... as this article essentially describes vaporware.--Isotope23 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. San Saba 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- are you suggesting that voting Keep is in regard to the merits of the dispute? RGTraynor 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment since I don't want to spam every single AFD this happened on, I'll just say it once here. Opining speedy keep based on "bad faith nomination" on a series of AfDs of deproded articles is the pot calling the kettle black. If you are going to opine Keep or Delete, at least do it based on the merits of the article. This is borderline WP:POINT.--Isotope23 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So is sending only Kappa deprods to AfD, as Eusebus has been doing. Thatcher131 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence the "Pot and Kettle" comment. Look, I'm not going to start attacking people personally, but there is a lot of poor behavior surrounding this whole situation and it's not just confined to one person. This is sort of the wrong place for that discussion though.--Isotope23 15:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the principles to WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL -- which, in fact, I do not believe Eusebeus is violating -- is that it isn't okay to be disruptive just because you think someone else is. As it happens, given Kappa's prod deletion totals, Eusebeus is nowhere near to AfDing them all, so I have a very hard time crediting any claim against him of disruption. RGTraynor 16:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per nom. Seems it was last heard about when pre-release screenshots were published around May of last year. [1] Barneyboo (Talk) 15:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Ajdz 18:02, 25 April 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.