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 now that multiple sources have been found. Wizardman 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solium Infernum

[edit]

Prodded article. Although not explicitly contested, the number of edits made by the creator after prodding counts as an implicit contestation. Those edits, however, failed to address the issue mentioned in the prod notice. This article is about a video game that will be released next year by a minor developper. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Delete without prejudice against recreation after the game's release. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit of a waste to delete the article only to recreate it once the game has been released. Cryptic Comet's last game, Armageddon Empires, has been deemed notable, and while CC is only an indie developer (a one man band, I think) it's still created a notable game. I don't know why SI would be any different?Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is standard practice. The article will have to be rewritten from scratch anyway after release, and if the company fails to release the game, we won't have an orphaned article taking up some disk space with no one looking at it. If it were a widely advertized future release (as was the case with Grand Theft Auto IV), that would be a different story. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that's a bit POV. There should be more behind our consideration than what budget the game has, how much advertising it received, or the size of the company releasing it. Armageddon Empires didn't get much advertising (I never saw any), and was made by the same company, but it's notable. Or did it only become notable after release?Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, it became notable only some time after release, when sales proved to be good. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is not the Harry Potter of video games. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I actually do not see how it would be a "waste" to delete the article. The AfD meanwhile has more content than the one on the subject. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Someoneanother's research. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rock Paper Shotgun preview by Kieron Gillen, Fidgit response, mentioned at the tail end of this interview. The point at which WP:CRYSTAL is successfully invoked has been shifting, articles on future games have been popping up and evolving as more information becomes available. In terms of notability and it being a minor developer, though coverage of indie games, MMOs and other more niche-market stuff is still a long way from broad and consistent, it has improved to the point that when multiple reliable sources are jumping all over a game at this point of development, it is very likely that it's already notable and will become more so as it progresses, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cortex command. Someone another 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that creating articles at this point of development was a waste of time, but after witnessing several AFDs which resulted in keep I've come to the conclusion that the AFDs themselves make more work than just citing and writing, the article is inevitably recreated shortly after and sticks because sources are cited. If the article is started with the usual headings then it's possible to keep adding to them as more information becomes available, keeping rewriting to a minimum. Previews can always be replaced with reviews when it comes to the gameplay section, if something brought up in previews turns out to not be featured in the finished game then that information becomes development info rather than gameplay, cut, paste and trim. Someone another 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Someoneanother, who has found sources to demonstrate notability. This isn't WP:CRYSTAL to the extent that we're covering the development of a notable game, which is no more WP:CRYSTAL than covering the US Presidential Election before we know who wins (although I won't say which one is more important to the fate of the world). Randomran (talk) 00:17, 15 August 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.