Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirates of the Caribbean Online

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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot 06:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates of the Caribbean Online

A game that doesn't exist yet. The website just redirects to Disney's Pirates website, which is mostly advertising for the movie. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The website clearly directs to the MMORPG page and not the movie. The game is in development and just because it isn't released to the public does not mean it doesn't exist. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, with no prejudice against writing an article when the game does exist. No beta, no newsletter, no notability as yet. -- nae'blis 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Personally, I'd say an official website, some screenshots, news and so on deems it to be notable at the least. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Newsletter updates HAVE been published, including one this month. The article was incorrect in that regard, I updated it. -- Vandelay 12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Abstain. - the article's undergone some improvements in sourcing, but I still think it's preliminary. Not enough to block a speedy keep though, if Zoe withdraws. -- nae'blis 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is/will be an official game release related to a blockbuster movie franchise. Certainly notable, even if unreleased. Rohirok 04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is legit. I had already heard about the game. Wryspy 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Macktheknifeau 05:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Crystalballism doesn't apply to a game that's almost certainly going to be released, and has verifiable sources. ColourBurst 06:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 08:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you look at the crystal ball policy, this clearly crosses the threshold into keepability. Information is well-sourced from official sources and/or press, and it would be notable once released. Captainktainer * Talk 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sources, and it is a game to be released. Havok (T/C/c) 10:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia has an entire (and fairly large) category of articles devoted to "Computer and video games under development". It has a similarly large category called "2007 computer and video games". (Refer to the bottom of the article to see the links). This deserves to stay as much as any of the others in those categories. -- Vandelay 12:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Far enough along that it will happen and isn't just speculation. StuffOfInterest 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above --Peephole 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep as per above. Dev920 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Ariadoss 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep plenty of useful content, here. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:SNOW? --PresN 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, but we could speedy if Zoe withdraws and nae'blis comes around. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major product, sufficiently notable, even pre-release. --Elonka 08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Vandelay. —dima /sb.tk/ 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Windows Vista doesn't exist yet in the same way. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per ColourBurst and many others. And yes, WP:SNOW does apply. However, I can't close it now. 1ne 05:54, 17 August 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.