Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Halo 3 project

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 merge to Halo (series). MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Halo 3 project

Basically WP:CRYSTAL. Sources verify little else than that the game exists. If this were an album it'd be WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The game just had screenshots released, there is a trailer, there is not too much confirmed information, but what little we know is backed by reliable sources. Deleting it would be a waste of time once we have to re do all the work already done for when it comes out. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - It meets the notability requirements, and has a number of reliable sources. Jasca Ducato (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Article is liberally sprinkled with such phrases as "Rumors have circulated", "It would supposedly feature", "The idea... was further fueled when", and "claims it will be an expansion to". If these aren't crystal ball predictions, what are? Themfromspace (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Perhaps if I removed those parts conflicting "CRYSTAL"...then it would be satisfactory.OsirisV (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of outside press. At the very least merge with Halo (series) or Bungie, but I definitely support a keep. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable, lots of coverage and reliable sources. Scotty dude _review 18:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm perplexed by the "definitely notable". What's definitely notable here? Its a bunch of speculation. RFerreira (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Halo (series) and redirect. This is speculation from the industry about what is coming. There isn't an actual product here yet to write an article about. Merge it into the main series article and then recreate the article when more information is available. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Halo (series). The main problem I have with the article is the title, and the potential for the article to be moved to any number of other, similarly vague and speculative titles on a whim; it would make a mess of useless redirects. I would support the re-creation of the article once the game's official title is revealed. -- Comandante {Talk} 21:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halo (series) — too early for its own article. There is only one source in the bunch that is verifiable (the last one) with the rest being speculation from blogs. The article's history, in this case, should also be preserved, providing another reason against outright deletion. Once more information comes out to the point that the article can stand on its own, then split back out to here. MuZemike (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halo (series) per MuZemike. A little too speculative at this point to warrant its own article, especially considering it doesn't have a name yet. Also support re-creation once title is confirmed. Cliff smith ^talk 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as noted above; needs more reliable sources for a full article but can be covered in the main Halo series article. Also, without a name, the page title is ugly and pretty much unsearchable. --MASEM 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Full article should not exist but what does exist can be useful in the Halo article. --Banime (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halo series article, per above. There's some coverage here, but really not enough reliable information to support a non-stub, with no sign of further coverage on the horizon. Split it later, once we actually know what the heck the game is. Randomran (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More information will be coming out for sure, deleting the article then having it come back up will be a waiste of both parties time. Ripster40 (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Jeez folks, come on here. It isn't out yet. We're going on speculation and clues. The time for an article on this is after the game is released, not now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please do not merge this, the Halo series article is big enough without adding an ever growing game article to it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's plenty of room in the Halo series article for a paragraph and a few references to stay in a holding pattern until more info becomes available. Once something more than CRYSTAL comes along, then it can be moved out. --MASEM 23:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm inclined to agree with the above merge comments. This article, although all good effort has been made to make it work, is contrary to WP:CRYSTAL all the same, as so little is known, not even the name. Concisely merge it into Halo (series)#Spin-offs and sequels, and then spin it out again when some real hard substantive stuff can actually be said about the game. A good criteria for knowing when to do that would be when it actually has a name and some indication of what sort of game we're actually dealing with, rather than the speculation we have at present. I strongly disagree with Judgesurreal777 on his view of merging, a few extra sentences or perhaps even a paragraph into Halo (series) is not going to detract from that article's quality or length if the merge is conducted efficiently. -- Sabre (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the same reasons given. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Merge and redirect? Who in their right mind searches for something titled "Untitled Halo 3 project"? JBsupreme (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The title is utterly useless from a search point of view, but merging preserves the edit history. Actual deletion is not really an option here, and is meant as a last resort for articles that have no place on Wikipedia at all. Merging is preferable as when the article is inevitably spun-out again when there is proper coverage and an actual name for the game, editors don't have to start from scratch: they simply revert the redirect, move the article to its name and carry on building the article. -- Sabre (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The subject appears to have reliable sources, although there isn't much in terms of the gameplay in the article. I don't have any objections for a move, however. I'd suggest a title change if the article is kept, however. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 23:42, 3 October 2008 (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.