Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars 2

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. No reliable sources provided; if they're found to exist, the article can be recreated. Shimeru 20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guild Wars 2

Guild Wars 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article provides no sources, Google search turns up nothing relevant. From what I can tell, this is little more than a rumor, at least at this point in time. Originally a PROD, removed by User:Lydon16 without edit summary.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; rumored release with a dubious source. An article can be created if/when a publisher or developer officially announces a sequel. --Muchness 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars Utopia for AfD precedent on articles about rumoured new games in the Guild Wars sequence. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment there is no doctrine of precedent in Wikipedia. All that matters is the consensus in this debate. Cynical 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You are quite mistaken, I'm afraid. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge: As with the fate of the Eye of the North article, merge any information here into the main Guild Wars article in the Chapters section and then close this one until such time ArenaNet posts substantial and official information on it. --Rambutaan 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• MERGE: per comments. Original reasoning before opinion change: per WP:CRYSTAL. Source article for this claims "NCsoft has announced", but no such announcement has been found to exist. This article is completely unrelated to the fate of "Eye of the North" - rumor started from same source, but covering two different supposed projects. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Just to clarify but the Guild Wars 2 mention *is* related to the "Eye of the North" article since the information for both of these articles that have been put up for deletion (Eye of the North and Guild Wars 2) came from the same source (which you do acknowledge Barek, but then say that there's no link between them, which confuses me). What I don't understand is how information on Eye of the North is considered factual and Guild Wars 2 isn't when they're both from the same source. Either information for both these topics get deleted (since I did vote the Eye of the North article to be deleted, but someone decided to merge instead, which is reasonable with the proviso that what is being said in the source is true) or they both get merged - seems simple to me :). Having one deleted and another accepted wouldn't make much sense at all (unless someone could find secondary sources to back up information) --Rambutaan 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - my reasoning was based on secondary information. At the time of the initial vote, "Eyeofthenorth.org" was a registered domain of NCsoft, while there was no secondary confirmation for "Guild Wars 2" (that domain is held by a third party who uses it for purposes which ArenaNet actively discourages - ie: they're selling in-game currency for real money). As of this morning, new information has surfaced: per the USPTO, NCsoft has trademarked both the names "Guild Wars: Eye of the North" as well as "Guild Wars 2". So, given this new information I am changing my opinion to "merge" (was previously delete). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh I see you had secondary info on domain names. My apologies, didn't realise :). --Rambutaan 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Complete and utter figment of someones imagination. The Kinslayer 09:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Raystorm 15:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep They've registered the name Guild Wars 2 at uspto now: http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3672/gwga9.jpg --PetteriH 23:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect into main Guild Wars article. Later go back and expand this article if any new info comes out. Mathmo ^Talk 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Tomorrow (march 15) new reputable sources will be available. --Twilight 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Guild Wars 2 is different from GW:EN. It's a new game and the information is coming out soon. Lightblade 10:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - correction, further information is speculated to be coming soon on GW2 - no official confirmation from ArenaNet has been made that it even exists, the most they have said is that information on Guild Wars is coming in the next PC Gamer magazine, but no confirmation if that news will be about GW:EotN, GW2, both, or something else entirely - see WP:CRYSTAL. --161.88.255.139 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Yes, there is verifiable information scheduled to appear in magazines in the next few days. But at the moment all we have is a pile of unverifiable nonsense (in fact, ArenaNet's PR person has said that most of the Inquirer article is 'misleading'). When the verifiable information is released, by all means we should have this article. Until then, no. Cynical 19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Suspend judgment for two more days. Normally I would say delete because of crystalballism, but the picture will become a lot clearer very soon and the name "Guild Wars 2" is supported by DNS and trademark registrations, as documented in Guild Wars#Guild Wars 2 already. This was the same way Guild Wars Nightfall was discovered weeks before any official announcement. Deletion absolutely this instant isn't worth the pain and anguish if it will just be recreated in two days. I would not object to reducing it to a stub until the official information surfaces, nor would I object to outright deletion unless by the end of the week there isn't significant improvement in the article's sources. Eric Sandholm 22:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that here we are on the 16th and the sources that were promised for the 15th have yet to materialize. The Kinslayer 11:50, 16 March 2007 (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.