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 Assassin's Creed#Sequel. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin's Creed 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is almost entirely gossip and conjecture. The only confirmed statement was "What we just can say is that we are working hard on the product." The rest of this info is made up or guessed at. While at some point it may be referenced and notable, it is certainly is not now. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The game is in development, and the first game was certainly notable. WP:Crystal certainly is relevant to the content of the article, but there is something that can be said about the game now from reliable sources (like the one included in the article now). Shadowjams (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The ENTIRETY of the reference is listed above. The only thing that has been officially said about this game is "What we just can say is that we are working hard on the product." That hardly counts as significant coverage, or really even coverage. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As pointed out, there's not a whole lot of information out there. WP:CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". As I see it, the release of Assassin's Creed 2 is certain to take place and will be notable. There's not a whole lot to say about it, other than that it is forthcoming, but I do find a large number of google hits, and there's enough information to make a decent article. Cool3 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The amount of google hits a topic gets says nothing about its notability per Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As with all things, the WP policy you're referencing indicates (through an example) that google hits alone do not create notability. That was not the argument that Cool3 was making. It is however quite relevant that there are a number of notable sources out there, which was his argument. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Assassin's Creed#Sequel. Not enough information to deserve its own article yet. TJ Spyke 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per TJ -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Assassin's Creed#Sequel. This is how we've handled far-off sequels for films and games for a while, and there's nothing at all to say about this future game if and when it comes out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. If the context of WP:NOTNOW wasn't squarely based on future Wikipedia administrators, I would cite this as a reason. However, WP:CRYSTAL is sufficient. It's waaaay too early for its own article yet. Wait until more verifiable information from reliable secondary sources come out. MuZemike 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The game is only confirmed. Let it be redirect until more information such has previews and interviews comes by. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am a big supporter of WP:Crystal and I think it's one of the more important policies because it discourages spam or otherwise non notable information that can't be disproved. That is not the situation here. Everyone acknowledges this is a notable game, and it seems fairly certain its release is anticipated. That, and there's a substantial amount of press coverage already (if this is the sticking point please indicate as much) out on the game. I don't think it's wise to nix the article merely because it doesn't have a release date specified (or some other arbitrary point). As some other commenters have noted, WP:Crystal's primary concern is on WP:RS. I say the debate should be focused on that. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't know anything about the game, other than that at some point the developers of the first game were working on it. There isn't any substantial amount of coverage; there isn't anything substantial to cover. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. There's not yet enough information to support a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above. Looking through the first several pages of Google results, basically the only thing that reliable sources are saying is that it's in development. — TKD::Talk 11:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to first AC article mostly for lack of any significant information with a sprinkling of WP:CRYSTAL. --MASEM 14:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect though there is not enough info, it will be an article someday.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This is a placeholder, not an article, as Johnny has pointed out the source provided has confirmed it is in development and provided nothing more. The moment any genuine information is available the redirection will be reversed and expansion can continue from there. Someoneanother 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Assassin's Creed#Sequel, per above. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it should stay redirected until there is enough content to justify an article, not just "when some info comes along". Until it can hold more than one paragraph on its own at least. Please watch the redirect in the meantime as I am certain it will be recreated, just as people have been re-adding the rumors to the article as this AfD has gone on. I don't think the talk page should be deleted, as it will hold the link to this AfD. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are over 20 screenshots, a video, a teaser, puzzles released in a webcam system by Ubisoft, a huge fan base, I am pretty sure thats more than a bunch of future game articles we have.

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.