Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of GTA

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 delete per WP:SNOW. –MuZemike 09:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of GTA

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. ~~Unreferenced~~, unencyclopedic speculation, original research. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Essay, WP:SYNTHESIS NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speculative. In the past I've argued that we should apply Wikipedia:Notability (films) to games or come up with a new set of guidelines specifically for games. Specifically relevant here: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." For games I would actually propose a higher standard, as in production games are frequently delayed and/or canceled (see Duke Nukem Forever). EeepEeep (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article does have references and I think it is highly due that this subject has its own page. --Jonnyzoo 93 (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL andyzweb (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and by appropriate extension from WP:HAMMERTIME. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not a crystal ball. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little cited speculation is OK in general in existing articles when talking about the next game in the series. But an article all on its own crosses the line into WP:CRYSTAL. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - Looking into the future blindly is not encyclopedic. If something hasn't been confirmed, no article is needed. If it has and there are reliable sources and significant coverage to back it up, then it should have inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CBALL --Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: futuristic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmclaughlin9 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, generally speaking, it is not within the scope of an encyclopedia to speculate on possible future events. Kill it before we get a wave of hundreds of "Future of..." articles on various subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it may be of note to mention the article creator's malicious edits here, here, and here. --Teancum (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and also here EeepEeep (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No notability here until a future game gains significant coverage, in which case it can have its own article anyway. This is redundant. --Taelus (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article has many references and sources to back it up which means it should stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.143.226 (talk • contribs) — 124.181.143.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There are only three references, and only one is reliable. --Teancum (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE violates WP:CRYSTAL --mhking (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, as per WP:CRYSTAL and even without that it needs a complete rewrite - after the game's announced. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:38, 25 January 2010 (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.