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. -- Longhair\^talk 10:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend II[edit]

Deletion material. WP:V cannot be met, the article has - so far - no notability, is a shining example of a crystal ball, no reliable resources, and - if no verifications are available - it might be original research. I don't think there's any reasons beyond that, but give me a hit if you have any more. WaltCip 14:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article should not be deleted since TR8 will be released (http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/tr8/index.html) and this page will probably get updated soon with newly announced material. --sturm 15:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article does not contain that reference~~. Even with it, I still highly doubt it would be encyclopedic material. Please read WP:CRYSTAL - Wikipedia is not designed to see the future. That's what gaming magazines are for.--WaltCip 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ Comment All other Lara Croft games turned out to be pretty notable, so applying WP:CRYSTAL here doesn't seem right to me. If no other info has been announced in maybe half a year (I don't know how long something like this takes), there is still enough time to delete it then. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no immediate proof that the article is notable, and just because other games that came before it are notable, and that this will probably become a notable game, the article does not inherit notability.--WaltCip 16:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the point of of the "Future" templates if precedent cases have already shown that an article subject will be notable? I mean it's not like any of the other Lara Croft games were deemed too nonnotable to not have an article (I think; I've never played this game and don't care to look them up). The current article also doesn't involve masses of OR so I honestly don't see the problem here with leaving it like is it until it either gets more info or is announced to be a cancelled project (in the latter case yes, delete it, but that seems currently unlikely). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus usually is quite the opposite to what you're suggesting. We do have articles on future product / event. But in this case, there is no verifiable information and it is not certain to take place (read will definitely come out) as specified in WP:CRYSTAL. The article currently states (without reference) that a magazine claim to have exclusive scoop on the upcoming title. That's not even a preview of the product, but rather an announcement of a upcoming preview. It doesn't get more crystal ball than that. KTC 17:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seems I misinterpretated the source as an official website, but it seems it is just a fansite (can't tell for sure). I therefore withdraw my keep !vote. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment above. KTC 17:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent crystal ballery. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:17, 17 September 2007 (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.