Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Halo 3[edit]

Halo 3 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 redirect.

  • We don't need a page for rumors for unpublished game, of which the unpublished game is not important enough. --SYSS Mouse 01:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Isn't this what Ain't-It-Cool and Slashdot are for? Let them handle the rumor mills, they do it so much better. Delete. Inky 01:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a rumors site. Bungie (Halo developer) has not even mentioned anywhere anything about Halo 3. --Randy 01:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • While Halo is arguably an important series in the history of gaming, this article is fancruft and uncorroborable rumor. The second one just came out, people! Delete. Suntiger 01:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete. Pure, unadulterated speculation. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 01:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is not verifiable because it is all rumors, and the rumors are quite apparently untrue and uncharacteristic of the Halo series (at least, vehicle and race names.) There are no sources listed. --Tomilius 01:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Halo (video game series), which has all the content needed about Halo 3 for the time being. -- Cyrius| 02:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Cyrius; redirect. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The content prior to Cyrius's redirect was a delete candidate as unverifiable. Keep the redirect in order to prevent the rumors from reappearing. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I can agree with that. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Uh, am I missing something? Why can't we talk about this, unless it's patent nonsense? This is the kind of thing a lot of people will want to know. We must think of the reader, not whether we think it's silly or not. I vote to keep and just monitor it carefully, unless it is indeed patent nonsense. Everyking 11:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If you're referring to the content that was previously there, it was entirely nonsense speculation after the second sentence of the second paragraph. Halo (video game series) already contained the non-nonsense content when I redirected to it. I should note that I'm not intending this redirect to be permanent, only to stay until there's something verifiable to say about the game. -- Cyrius| 15:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, was it nonsense, or was it just rumors? I don't see anything wrong with including rumors, provided they are stated as rumors. But if there's no way to determine if these are indeed rumors with any kind of circulation, then of course we could delete on grounds of lack of verifiability. Everyking 16:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • It was absolute speculative nonsense, not rumors. See Talk:Halo 3 and the article's history. The only rumor with any currency is the assumption of Halo 3's existence based on the ending of Halo 2. -- Cyrius| 19:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Then I'll take your word for it and change my vote to redirect. Everyking 00:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or Keep as redirect. Game is, I believe, announced, or at least clearly in development based on the end of Halo 2 and the sales of Halo 2. We have Harry Potter: Book Seven and Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, both of which are primarily rumors. As long as the rumors are documented in some sane fashion ("Gamestop reports that," and "Fan speculation on the Halo message boards widely tended towards") I'm OK with reporting them. Snowspinner 18:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • How about a nice compromise? :) We move all the content to Halo (video game series), clearly state it as mostly (or all) rumors, and make this page into a redirect. I believe the content itself deserves to be on Wikipedia, perhaps not to have an entire page devoted to it. LockeShocke 20:24, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with redirect, but would prefer that unsubstantiated rumors not be merged. -Sean Curtin 23:01, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. This is an article about something that does not exist. --L. Pistachio 03:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Extreme Delete To The Max Ex Plus Alpha 5. Seriously, though, make it a redirect to the Halo series or nix the thing, otherwise it's going to attract loads of conjecture before the game's even announced. Also, rumours should not be the bulk of the wikipedia's knowledge on a subject, whether that subject has its own article or is included in another. There's a difference between "Blah blah blah, blah, blah, may support MP3 playback" and "So the Chief may, it is conjectured, shoot walruses at space hippos with his ninja powers. Other conjecture supposes that they will be ninjas shot with walrus powers. But nobody's made an announcement yet so we're basing a potential subject on dust and echoes". Where was I? Yes, delete the rumours. Sockatume 08:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • In fact, it doesn't even qualify as conjecture or rumours, it's just stuff folk have made up. There's no attempt to ground any of it in the actual evidence or reality presented. And then they stick a "spoiler" warning on it. Even in my brutally brain-mangled low-sleep state I can tell it needs to be removed. Sockatume 08:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That is one of the best things I've ever read. And only slighly more ridiculous than some of the things the anonymous author of most of this page's content has been spewing through the Halo articles. -- Cyrius| 18:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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