Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diablo 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diablo 3

There has been no indication as to the existence of Diablo 3, this article even stats so itself. All in all it's just rumors on rumors. Until Blizzard announces the game, I don't see any reason that this article should be here. It also breaks WP:NOT a crystal ball. Sorry. Havok (T/C/c) 12:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't know if there is a 'Wikipedia is not a gossip column' guideline, but there should be. The Kinslayer 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I think that falls under Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Havok (T/C/c) 12:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Yep, that covers it. It also seems to be largely original research, for example saying that because World of Diablo is trademarked, it hints at Diablo 3. It could also be solely to stop someone else from attempting to use the title, and have nothing to do with a new Diablo game. After all, GTA has trademarked GTA:Tokyo, GTA: Borneo and a few others, but that in no way means that there are actual plans to make those games. The Kinslayer 13:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment My thoughts as well. I forgot about WP:OR as well. Thank you for mentioning it. Havok (T/C/c) 13:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - As a player of Diablo 2, I can tell you that there have been rumors of a Diablo 3 game for years, and while it isn't currently announced, we can expect Blizzard to eventually make one. There's a very serious fanbase behind Diablo 2, and I don't think Blizzard will abandon them indefinitely-- there's too much money involved. The article as it is is poorly written, and should be shortened to a stub in order to remove the speculation (since wikipedia is not a crystal ball). However, I feel that it could have encyclopedic value. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How is this any different from saying there's bound to be a Half-Life 3 because it stands to reason? It's not. It's fan speculation based on tenuous rumours and unconfirmed statements. If it transpired to be a massive hoax, then it would be article worthy. As it stands, leave your speculation for the various fan message boards. Wikipedia is not for reporting rumours and drawing conclusions. It's for reporting FACTS and Diablo 3 is NOT a fact, no matter how much fans expect it to happen. If Blizzard turned round tomorrow and said 'We are making Diablo 3' that would be a different matter. But they won't. The Kinslayer 15:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply Please be civil when replying. I just wanted to throw my two cents in, and it feels like everyone's jumping on my ass because of it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment GIS Blizzard "Diablo 3" returns 315,000 results. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment What encyclopedic value is there in keeping Diablo 3 in its own article? What little information that would be left after your suggestion can just as easily be added to Diablo (computer game). There is absolutely no reason why this article should exist. And even though it might not fail the guideline WP:WEB, it still fails WP:NOT which is policy. Havok (T/C/c) 15:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Compromise It would be acceptable to say that there is/has been fan speculation about Diablo 3 somewhere in the Diablo (computer game) article, and redirect Diablo 3 to that section. Aside: something I noticed while looking at those search results (the ones with content/relevant rumors)... most of them are very recent. Interesting. Regardless of the fate of this article, I hope that the game Diablo 3 is eventually made. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Food for thought - I just remembered an extremely similar article that got deleted for the same reason i.e. Crystal Balling. Starcraft 2. Same company, same unconfirmed sequel to a game, same attempt to build an article out of fan expectations, unsubstantiated rumours and not a single fact to go on. The Kinslayer 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 14:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - not that quite worthly keep. SYSS Mouse 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Sorry folks, this kind of article just isn't going to cut it. We don't make things that don't exist yet. Once D3 becomes a confirmed reality, I am sure the world we be more than happy to receive this wiki article. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - While we do have articles about software in development, this is pretty much fan speculation and failing WP:V. Wickethewok 18:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There have been a few bad arguments here I'd like to address. Most come from WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but that doesn't mean that diablo 3 has not had discussion or cultural relevance. Being a crystal ball would be to assert it exists, or that to speculate on content. Much like windows "longhorn" was never a released product, it was still a valid target for documented information. There's at least one solid reference on the page. That meets WP:Verifiable. i kan reed 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: That source is questionable at best. The source isn't anyone involved in the actual meat of the production - he writes novelisations of computer games, which does not place him in the position to guarantee a future game. The article also cites the fact that "World of Diablo" is trademarked, ignoring the fact that the phrase has already been used in commerce and therefore does not indicate a future game. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... I was looking at the trademark app for "World of Diablo" (you have to search for it, their website won't let you direct-link like the rest of the internet) and it lists "IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer game software. FIRST USE: 20060715. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060715 IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line computer game. FIRST USE: 20060715. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060715" as the use and "(APPLICANT) GENERAL COMPUTERS, INC. CORPORATION NEVADA 606 JOHNSON AVENUE, SUITE 18 BOHEMIA NEW YORK 11716" as the owner. Anyone know who "General Computers, Inc." is? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Judging from the Blizzplanet interview, Diablo 3 will exist one day. However today is not that day. If there was any official indication (like Microsoft vaguely confirming Fable 2 at E3 2005) then yes this could stay. Until then, delete it. GarrettTalk 21:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete until we have more available information that "it may exist one day". Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wait until it's real. L0b0t 23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge But only a sensible bit, to the main Blizzard article, or the one on the Diablo series. FrozenPurpleCube 04:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until more reliable sources come along, or redirect to a main Diablo article. Yamaguchi先生 07:06, 1 November 2006
  • Complete Delete This does not belong at all until there is confirmation, then there is a space for it DotDarkCloud 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Whirlwind Delete WP is not a crystal ball. ——(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article can be recreated if/when Diablo 3 is officially announced (via verifiable sources). --Alan Au 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely Keep - Up till Richard A. Knaak's interview, you could argue it's only rumors. Not now though. If you apply the same logic there should be NO Windows Vista article. For all I care, it's only rumors - it has been announced, delayed, postponed, announced again. I haven't seen the box, have you? Of course, there will be inaccuracies at this point but the disclaimer at the top addresses that.Krasimir 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Then please give me any sort of proof other then a sentence made by Knaak where he said "I am not writing for a dead world... but a world with dead. 'nuff said!" which means nothing really. Besides, bringing up Windows Vista is flawed seeing as it was announced in the form of a press release ages ago, even before the name Vista was given to it. There is a difference between unsubstantiated rumors and facts from the company making the announcement. Blizzard have said nothing in the form of fact yet. Thus the article is suffering the crystal ball syndrome. Havok (T/C/c) 13:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete -- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Andre (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Crystal ball article Borisblue 03:50, 6 November 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.