Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need for Speed XI

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 No consensus. Rlevse 14:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need for Speed XI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Game has not been announced. WP is not a crystal ball. JACOPLANE • 2007-02-23 23:51

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. JACOPLANE • 2007-02-23 23:53
• Delete, not enough concrete information to make it noteworthy (yet). Garrett^Talk 04:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't agree with that, there is plenty of useful information. --MrStalker 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well, from the sources used in the article so far it appears that a reasonable article was possible to construct. Also, one would imagine that being in the NFS series would confer considerable notability on the game in question. Perhaps when the game's title is officially announced, move it to the title. It isn't like someone wrote an article about "NFS XXXXXXXXII" here, just a game in development that is coming out soon-K@ngie^meep! 07:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well, I agree with Kangie. --MrStalker 08:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is well sourced and provides plenty of useful information. It is about a future game, it's not supposed to be 100% facts. The game might not be officially announced, but it is 99% certain that it will be pretty soon, which anyone who is somewhat up-to-date with the series whould know. --MrStalker 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apears to be sourced well. Article must be kept up-to-date though. Suriel1981 14:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the article about the game in development. And it has been announced long time ago. Elk Salmon 14:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was it announced? The article does not contain any reference for such an announcement. JACOPLANE • 2007-02-24 14:42
  • I stand on keep, but I really don't know about that announcment of yours... unless you're talking about unoffical announcment, then I agree. --MrStalker 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. WP does not give anything to recognized franchise games; ther has to be an official announcement. See The Legend of Zelda (Wii) for another open AFD; also from a notable series, but nothing definitive yet. Hbdragon88 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is unoffically announced. Official will come soon. --MrStalker 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing it with The Legend of Zelda (Wii) is just wrong, that article hasn't got anything, Need for Speed XI got a hell of a lot more. --MrStalker 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with MrStalker. I recommended deletion for [[The Legend of Zelda (Wii) because of its lack of proper sourcing. This article seems to probably have more reliable citations, though, at least at first glance. Dugwiki 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources and enough information to warrant a small article that will expand as the game nears release. Rumors and such should be excised through the usual editing process. — brighterorange (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we removed all of the rumored information, I think we'd have a two-paragraph stub. If this survives I'll be cutting out most of the article. Hbdragon88 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's about a future game, what would you expect? --MrStalker 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing wrong with a two paragraph stub! — brighterorange (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be even less than that. Remove all the rumors and speculation, and you will be left will one sentence (EA is working on the next Need for Speed, no details are known). TJ Spyke 09:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That's 5 Keep vs. 2 Delete, 3 with the original post. When can the ugly afd-template be removed? --MrStalker 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFDs usually last at least 5 days. — brighterorange (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not a straight vote-count, it may or may not be deleted. A few good delete arguments will counter a hundred keep comments. Hbdragon88 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep since article appears to be reasonably sourced. However, I agree that it needs to be cleaned up and the unverified/speculative information removed. --Alan Au 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's an article about a future game, it doesn't matter if some of the information is speculative, as stated in the template --MrStalker 11:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a difference between an announced game that has yet to be released and an unannounced game that has absolutely no confirmation if it will ever be made or not. Hbdragon88 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep assuming references check out WP:Crystal Ball does not require that the game be "officially announced". It only requires that the information about a future game come from reliable, referenced sources. So if the sources in the article are reliable publishers talking about things that are very likely to occur, then that is perfectly acceptable. Keep the article, and remove any unreferenced information. Dugwiki 20:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree --MrStalker 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S. You can even have articles about games that have never been released, and might not ever be released, provided there is enough published information about the "vaporware". Duke Nukem Forever is a good example of an article about a game that, even if it is never actually released, has enough references and notability to remain on Wikipedia. Dugwiki 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One key diff is that DNF has been officially announced. We know it's coming. We just don't know when. NFSXI may be coming. We don't know. Hbdragon88 01:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it will. Check out EA's offical forum and the references. --MrStalker 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Patent crystal balling, sources are entirely unreliable. For the record, I read until "According to rumours", then skipped to the references and saw they were all crap. --- RockMFR 08:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it would have said "according to sources" if someone hadn't changed it, but anyway. The sources are reliable, they are no more unreliable then many other sources releated to CVG articles. --MrStalker 09:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if there isn't a straight vote-count, who's the judge? --MrStalker 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion I think we should keep the article and remove the afd-notice from it. --MrStalker 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well it's clear that you feel so, but I don't think that there has been one single good argument for keeping this article. The game is unnannounced, and none of the sources used in the article qualify as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It's up to the closing administrator to decide whether to delete or keep the article. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-2 10:52

That is your opinion, obviously. I see plenty of good arguments to keep it. One of those is, as I wrote above, the sources are no more unreliable then many other sources related to CVG articles. It may not be offically announced, but EA is already talking about it unoffically. This game will come in quarter 4, as every other game in the Need for Speed series have done each year since Motor City Online. --MrStalker 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per RockMFR, Hbdragon88. As there's no deadline, we don't need to have an article until there are things to say which are WP:ATTributable. At the moment, this is crystal ball-gazing based essentially on a single source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's based on several sources. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." This applies for this article. --MrStalker 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is just about all speculation (the rumored cars, rumored release date, the fact that the game hasn't even been announced by EA). TJ Spyke 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That depends on how you define "speculations" and "romours". Everything in the article is properly sourced. An interview with an EA employee is not what I call speculations. And, there's nothing that says Wikipedia cannot have some speculations as long as they are properly sourced, especially for an article about a future game. --MrStalker 09:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All that interview did was say that the "Pro Street" subtitle was bullshit. There are ZERO facts in this article, and no confirmation the game even exists. WP policy says this article should be deleted until some details are known, it's the same reason articles on the PS4, and other future movies/games get deleted. These articles are not supposed to be up until some details are known (not "the game could have this", "some of the rumored cars are", "information may be announced at E3" type of stuff). TJ Spyke 09:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.