Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroid: Other M

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 Snowball keep Clearly there's no argument for deletion anymore, since the article has been greatly improved. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid: Other M[edit]

Here, I'm somewhat uncertain, but while the game was announced, it is also a year or more off of release. I've known games which have been at such a stage that they could be tested/demo-ed which have failed to make release (and that are not named Duke Nukem' Forever), so if I've jumped the gun please let me know. However, under film guidelines (the closest I can find) this would likely fall a bit short. Tyrenon (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the precedent on unreleased but announced video games is. On one hand, you have Left 8 Dead, but on the other, you don't have Half-Life 2: Episode Three Sceptre ^(talk) 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenon, could you please link to the "film guidelines" you speak of? In regard to the game possibly being canceled, it's possible, though highly unlikely. It's being published by Nintendo. I don't see a problem with having an article where people can add more information as it is revealed. Hypersonic12 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF. Also, read WP:CRYSTAL. There's no point in an article if no verifiable info exists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hammer. Yeah, NFF is what I was thinking of.Tyrenon (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The game has already entered "Principal Photography" (it is in development as shown by the e3 trailer), and in my opinion, "the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (first bullet). It has been my observation that Nintendo very rarely has let first-party publicized games die away. I could be wrong.Hypersonic12 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It's been officially announced as in development and is receiving a lot of coverage. Vodello (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Metroid: Other M is the true article, ~~so I am in favor of deleting this one~~. Please don't nominate the other article for deletion. Vodello (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've requested a history-merge of this article into the true title. I would also request that my last edited version be present in the article as it is already cleaned up and verifiable. MuZemike 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Back to Keep because we keep changing the title of the AFD. Vodello (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Vodello (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – First, already plenty of reliable sources (Eurogamer, Kotaku (if the link comes back up), The Mirror, Gamespot) that provide plenty of coverage of this upcoming game. Second, give the article a chance; it's only been up for 15min before AFDing it. MuZemike 21:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per above, the article seems to be verified. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Better idea: Speedy delete (G6) and history-merge to Metroid: Other M, which is the actual title of the game. Article should still be kept, however. MuZemike 22:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]
- ~~Tagged Metroid: Other M with a {{db-histmerge}}. MuZemike 22:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Agreed, I created the page with the wrong title...Hypersonic12 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done History-merged and moved to the actual title, along with the AFD. MuZemike 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to remove the page. Yes theres a degree of WP:Crystal here, but the game is announced and backed up with supposefly reliable sourcing. The question to me only is raised is if the sources are questionable but this is an official press release from the company which is genuine enough I believeOttawa4ever (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable sources point at it. Marlith (Talk) 00:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it has enough sources to warrent inclusion and we should improve the article as more sources become available. I Feel Tired (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Nintendo unveiled it in their Keynote speech for E3 2009 with a long trailer, meaning they're really committed to the game, so I think the only thing keeping it from being released in the closure of Nintendo and/or Team Ninja, or the possible acquisition of Team Ninja by Microsoft or Sony, which is probably really unlikely. Also, what's with people talking about two Other M pages? Ever link on here points to the same article... JQF • Talk • Contribs 01:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY, good work all around. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apologies for a bit of a rant here. Seriously, I saw the story in Slashdot, saw the trailer, went to Wikipedia to see what we have here, and bam, now I'm staring at the deletion discussion. This is the second time I've been hit with this sort of thing (the last time it was about the next year's Eurovision Song Contest). This isn't funny, guys. If we cut tiny game modding teams years and years worth of slack based on a few game mag appearances, we sure as heck shouldn't be immediately deleting something that a Real Company™®© has announced for a release a mere year hence, gosh darn it. We're talking about Nintendo here. *sigh* Let's try again in 2012 or so and if no one ever made nary a peep about the game after all, then maybe we should try deleting this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, I agree. This is a silly nom, and should be closed asap. ScienceApe (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The main problem with the article is users, including both IP and registered, wanting to add their own speculation or assumptions. However, there is no reason to delete this. That was a very official announcement, and this game is not going to fall into oblivion unless Team Ninja is disbanded due to financial troubles, but Nintendo would probably still own the code anyway. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, the game is clearly in development and this nomination appears to have been the result of a mistake/misunderstanding. ShadowUltra (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2009 (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.