Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl 2

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl

Yet another confirmation of the soundness of the wikipedia policy: no articles about future things. The release of the game is being delayed.

I say delete. No reason to serve as pre-release promotion for as game that cannot even be delivered as promised.Previous discussion (December 2004) is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. Mikkalai 17:28, 5 Apr 2005

And to those who deleted my VfD note. I am ready and in my rights to relist this vote every three months, against shameless promotion of non-existing things that even are not done properly. Didin't it come to your mind that the thing may flunk altogether? Mikkalai 17:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, as before. Xezbeth 17:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 18:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. May be re-created without prejudice when the game is released and shown to be notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable/speculation. —Seselwa 18:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unreleased games, unless it can be shown without doubt they'll be released. Can be recreated per Dpbsmith if it's released. Mgm|^(talk) 20:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until and unless the game actually exists. RickK 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, plainly and obviously. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Slac speak up! 21:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps vaporware, but a notable game. Why not Duke Nukem Forever as well? K1Bond007 22:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • How can vapourware be notable? I vote delete until the game really is published. — JIP | Talk 07:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As stated see Duke Nukem Forever. I find it very hypocritical that many of you voted based on it being unreleased when countless television shows, films, books etc that haven't been released have their own article (ex. Inglorious Bastards, which doesn't even have a finished script! See also 2006 in film). STALKER is a very notable game with over 200K listings on Google including tons of previews, fan websites etc etc etc. The article merely needs a cleanup and expansion. K1Bond007 18:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Then put them up for VFD as well, just because there is some cruft already in the wikipedia, that doesn't excuse adding more.Gmaxwell 20:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vaporware. Radiant_* 08:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is borderline. Cleanup and expand. Megan1967 09:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable vaporware. Kappa 20:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vaporware is not notable. --Calton | Talk 00:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Bucephalus 12:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No future events. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting to some people RustyCale 18:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or else remove all articles on to-be released, end-stage development stuff - movies etc. included. Be consistent! Erm, I also happened to be the one to remove the VfD note from the page, as it only pointed to the old (archived, non-active) VfD page. So it was not relevant. --TVPR 20:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • See for yourself what you've removed. And there is no "or else" here, as explained by others. If the process of development of a new thing is notable, then it makes an article. This one has only advertising (read: unverifiable guesswork and relying on author's words) about how cool it gonna be. Like I said, I will repost this vfd in 3 months and I bet my beard my reasons will not change. Mikkalai 21:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Please define notable in this case? Also: Even now there is no consensus on what is notable or not, as there is policy arguments on wether or not "notability" is going to be an argument on speedy deletion. As per my knowledge, notability is not a valid VfD argument. As for the deleted link, I apologize again, but I assure you - I only got to the archived page. Though I cannot see why. --TVPR 16:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please note TVPR's argument. ShadowHunter 02:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable/speculation. Gmaxwell 20:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable vapourware. JuntungWu 09:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. as per TVPR's comments. Robinoke 16:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Wait until E3 to see how far along the game is, then decide. Thunderbrand 17:16, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As a non-notable gaming journalist, I'd say this game is notable for the ammount of attention it got and the randomness of its (not-entirely-confirmed) cancelation. Plus, it still could come out. --Asriel86 00:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.