Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MultiVersus

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. WP:SNOW keep. Notability has been clearly shown. Any issues with merging the content from the draft can be handled in the talk page, not at AfD. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MultiVersus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

MultiVersus

Planned video game that does not satisfy game notability or general notability. There is only one reference listed, which is not independent, and therefore nothing that resembles significant coverage. This article is obviously incomplete because it lacks a Development section (and so doesn't say anything). There is also a draft, so that this article cannot be moved to draft space. The draft is a little better than this article, but its Development section relies on rumors, and some of its references are malformed, so that merging the draft into the article is not feasible. Speculation about upcoming video games is essentially crystal balling, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lot of RS prior to today's news related to rumors and Streisand Effects of WB denying this game, but as they are published by RSes with industry validation, they are valid to include. Also, IGN is considered an independent source for coverage of video games, so that's not an issue (and most of the major VG publications covered the news today of its announcement). There clearly needs to be more sources added, but this would have been easily proven out by a proper BEFORE search. --Masem (t) 00:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of dedicated third party sourcing is out there to create a start class article without any speculation involved. This nomination is a failure of WP:BEFORE.

All sources deemed reliable per WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, 4 of those sources already exist in the article and I just added the other 2 in the draft 2603:8080:F605:4078:8454:27E9:4C46:1EF9 (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete:~~ I just made A draft for this article this morning, with better sources. This duplicate article was created in the evening. I made it a draft specifically so it could go through the proper notability tests and to be discussed/improved upon before turning into an article. 2603:8080:F605:4078:3DFD:A663:C795:1ADB (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a valid speedy deletion rationale, but it doesn't matter, you don't need to delete the article to implement the content of your draft. Just...edit it in. Build up the article with your draft content. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, technically what I'm saying is a comment I guess then. 2603:8080:F605:4078:3DFD:A663:C795:1ADB (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify We need game release/more leaks for the article. Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 03:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A draft already exists and it contains a bunch of sources. 2603:8080:F605:4078:8454:27E9:4C46:1EF9 (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW keep You've gotta be kidding me, just google it and look at how much coverage it's getting in reliable sources. We don't need to include speculation because there is plenty of material to include regarding the multiple leaks from last month, which were extensively covered in reliable sources (again, just google it). The Hungrybox leak isn't even mentioned in the article [edit: now it is], and the PapaGeno leak only has a single sentence. I don't think that the nominator even attempted to comply with WP:BEFORE. Mlb96 (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Plainly meets WP:GNG and seems like a case where someone failed to conduct the required WP:BEFORE searches. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had made A draft for MultiVersus about ~6-8 hours before someone copied into the article space IIRC, it’s much better sourced and has more information on the game's rumors and development. I thought it was important to point out. 2603:8080:F605:4078:6046:D2C6:486D:712E (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Sufficiently supported by RS and doesn't seem to be WP:TOOSOON as well (at least there is a gameplay trailer and an adequate amount of information about characters). OceanHok (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The article has just been created, with the game having being announced within under 24 hours, and it has already gained large notably and although MANY edits within the article are cut and paste from the draft made by user DocFreeman24, large apologies, it is also keen to mention the title Nickelodeon All-Star Brawl had in article within the first day of its announcment and received the same amount of notability and no mention of speedy deletion was ever placed, so please I ask you kindly and heavily just like the many people within the talk PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE ARTICLE, WeldingF November 19, 2021.

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.