Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descent 4

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 redirect to Descent (video game). If anyone wants to merge any of the information into Descent (video game) the history will remain. J04n(talk page) 12:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Descent 4

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

Speculations and rumors on a project that never took off Lyverbe (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. It does seem to have died out as a project, since there's been no new info on it for a few years now. And it's a shame. Delete without prejudice, in case it gets revived. The Moose is loose! 08:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: It's difficult to justify having a standalone article for a game that's been vaporware for years. Moreover, the sources describing the proposed game are either Interplay press releases or are news stories based on the contents of these releases. However, it may be useful to retain Descent 4 as a redirect because the topic appears to still be generating significant interest and is likely being used fairly often as a search term (e.g. the article was viewed 1695 times last month). A couple potential redirect destinations exist, both of which already contain some information about the proposed game: Descent (video game)#Related titles or Red Faction#Red Faction and Descent 4. I also have no prejudice against the article's future recreation if the game is revived. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Descent (video game), per WP:CRYSTAL, since there is no screenshots and cover, it appears the franchise of the game has been dead for years since Duke Nukem Forever came out after 15 years of development. JJ98 (Talk) 06:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even if the game is vaporware, it was indeed a game planned to follow a popular game franchise. Duke Nukem Forever had an article for years, long before it was miraculously released. So the question shouldn't be "do we keep this because the project is dead or alive" but "how do we properly document that this game was in planning stages and is now abandoned". The article should be reworded to reflect known facts (which are sourced from articles published at the time), not casually deleted because it seems unnecessary. --Stux (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia works with facts and there are no facts at all about Descent 4. Descent 2 is in my top 3 favorite games of all times and I certainly hope Descent 4 will one day become a reality, but we can't keep "What if..." articles on Wikipedia. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand, from reading through the talk page, that there is question regarding the legitimacy of some of the sources behind some of the rumors, but does that mean that the company never planned a Decent 4 release and never announced a cancellation of the project? And that it never planned to revive (and announce such revival) of said game? I can understand deleting the article if everything said therein is pure fabrication and an elaborate hoax by a multitude of actors, but such a thing seems highly unlikely. I think the adequate thing to do is remove unsourced and/or unambiguously unencyclopedic material and present the information that is known and can be corroborated. If there's only a paragraph or two left that's fine, but the topic and the article deserve due diligence. If, in the end, the material ends up being a byline in a redirected article, so be it. But proper work must be done instead of just blindly deleting it. --Stux (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do agree that Descent 4 deserves a mention simply because Interplay (once upon a time) officially announced the game as a sequel to a popular franchise. Where I don't agree is that to "properly document that this game was in planning stages and is now abandoned" requires that it be the subject of a standalone article. Descent (video game)#Related titles already devotes a paragraph to documenting this fact (and there's still room to expand it further and provide additional supporting citations). That Interplay had proposed to create the game will continue to be documented somewhere on Wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this AfD - but the operative question is whether this documentation needs to be the subject of its own article. In light of the game's non-existence and the scanty nature of reliable sources aside from that which is based upon company press releases, I do not believe that such an article is warranted. A redirect would be quite appropriate though. Moreover, properly cited bits and pieces from this article can always be incorporated into the relevant discussion in Descent (video game). --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2013 (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.