Wikipedia:Deletion review/StarCraft II

The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was kept deleted and protected against recreation. - brenneman^{L} 01:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft_II (Talk:StarCraft_II)

This page is protected against recreation, the blue link does not mean it's been undeleted.

You may not have noticed if you haven't been reading this article recently, but it has changed a LOT since it's previous vote for deletion. For example one vote reads "there's not a shred of fact in this article" - in the version as it was then this was very much true, as I saw it before and any admin can see if they check the history (hopefully?).

The original article was recreated with a lot of rubbish including citing a YTMD page as a reference that the game was going to be released soon, but then recently updated with a lot of verifiable facts and very little speculation.

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson (an administrator apparently) deleted the article without any attempt at discussion citing the old vote for deletion, from when the article was very different as it was prior to him deleting it.

It has been stated by Blizzard (as the good version of the article prior to deletion said) that there WILL be a StarCraft II game released at some point, so this is not "crystal ball" at all, and again I will point out that the article in it's current version was verifiable facts only and thus there's no reason this should be deleted.

For reference of those who want to vote but can't see what the article was before it was deleted so they can make an informed decision (those who aren't administrators), Here is a copy of what the article looked like before it was deleted, citing a very old vote for deletion --Col. Hauler 11:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per my rationale above. --Col. Hauler (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted since whatever has changed in the article, Wikipedia is still not a crystal ball. Speculated unannounced games are really hard to cover encyclopaedically. By which I mean as close to impossible as makes no practical difference. Just zis Guy you know? 11:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted per Zis guy and the fact that we aren't a crystal ball for unannounced and unverifiable game sequels. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 17:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted per JzG. RasputinAXP c 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted per JzG. Xoloz 00:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very verifiable, look at the link. That's what the article looked like, it was perfectly sourced - it was only deleted because the old version of the article was terrible and got deleted before (a short stub citing nothing more than a YTMD page) - it's a good, encyclopedic, article now.
JzG, this game has been announced, read the link, there's plenty of sourced quotes from the company that the game will be produced, just a release date has not been set. That's normal, lots of games have Wikipedia articles before their release date has been set (StarCraft: Ghost, Doom III, anyone? Exactly the same situation). There's no reason to delete this article whatsoever, I've refuted every claim that could be used for deletion and no one has been able to come up with a single good reason. It's very notable, it's very encylcopedic, it's completely verifiable and sourced. --Col. Hauler 11:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted I have read the link Col. Hauler gave above, and there is no offical announcement, bar a non-committal "we do fully intend to revisit the world", and a verbal promise four years ago, neither of which are concrete enough to base an article on. Regards, MartinRe 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for now, I'm afraid. (This is coming from someone who'd *kill* to have StarCraft II in his hands. =]) —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. An announcement by a company isn't probative here, especially one as vague as the one linked above--all kinds of things are announced (see Vaporware) that never occur. Game companies are particularly notorious in this regard (see Duke Nukem Forever). · rodii · 12:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). The fact that we've not yet deleted other articles which violate the "crystal ball" rule is no excuse to repeat the mistake here. Rossami (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet if Duke Nukem Forever has an article, so there should be one for StarCraft II. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." - All the stuff that was in the article (in it's state just prior to deletion) was verifiable, and certainly there's a wide enough interest to merit an article (just try googling "StarCraft 2"). --Col. Hauler 12:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're comparing apples and oranges. The Duke Nukem Forever article is primarily about its vaporware status. It's notable mainly for that, whereas Starcraft II isn't. There's no reason the verifiable material here couldn't be merged with Starcraft. · rodii · 15:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only fact in that article is that Blizzard intends to revisit the StarCraft universe. That's certainly nowhere near a confirmation that StarCraft II exists. The rest is just fan speculation. It's the same reason why Mario Party DS has been deleted multiple times and is now protected from recreation. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per JzG and TheKoG. Barno 14:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, reluctantly. The deletion was out of process; the new article is significantly different than what was voted on previously. WP:SNOW might apply, but I think another AfD is not unreasonable. (A few notes: Duke Nukem Forever has an article because there are people whose job is to develop that specific game (or, at the very least, there have been in the past), and its prolonged development cycle is itself notable. Neither applies to SC2. Any relevant information on SC2 can easily be placed in the StarCraft article. None of this affects my decision on the issue at hand, though, which is whether the article was properly deleted. It was not.) Powers 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per LtPowers. Mango juice^talk 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Powers. Significantly different from article which went through AfD. JoshuaZ 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist - There seem to be a lot of veriable statements from Blizzard representatives about this game. Some of the more speculative material will have to go, of course. The caption on the main photo is one example that stood out for me when reading through this, but really it wasn't as crufty as I expected. I don't think it violates our crystal ball policy to have an article, and if this gets undeleted, I'd be glad to help clean it up. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.