Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Days to Vegas

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 Days to Vegas[edit]

No potential to become encyclopedic Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:34, 2005 May 18 (according to history Uncle G 18:15, 2005 May 18 (UTC))

Keep. —Tokek 18:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There is nothing in the article to indicate what it is, who made it, anything of substance. Delete. RickK 22:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  - 86,000 search results for an XBox game that hasn't even been released yet. Nothing seems to indicate it won't be released sooner than the Phantom or Duke Nukem Forever. At first I didn't give a reason because I wasn't sure what the reason for the deletion request was. (Why does it not have potential to becoome encyclopedic? What part of 86,600 google hits are unverifiable? ) —Tokek 01:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, I only wanted to know the reasoning for your vote. Rick K 21:03, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It appears to be a planned console game for the Playstation 3. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 20:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Play Station 3 appears to be a planned console. By the same logic, should the Play Station 3 article be deleted also? I don't see much opinion that this will be vaporware. By the way, a quick googling seems to indicate it will also be released for the Xbox 360 console.—Tokek 01:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article doesn't even say what it is, except that it's a game (with pen and ink? with dinner parties? a war game?). Turns out, it isn't a game. It's a rumor of a game. Therefore, unverifiable as non-existant. This is on top of the writing being incomprehensible. Geogre 01:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unverifiable future events. Rossami (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. EvilPhoenix 03:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 05:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Expand. So far everything they've said is true and verifiable, it's been in all the previews etc., but there is MUCH more known about the game than that. Even so I am loth to keep it. It is a real game, with screenshots and news articles and story summaries and everything, but *this* article doesn't give all the facts, and I don't have the time to improve it myself. So let's kill it off for now. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: now I reread it more carefully, this is ALL false and NONSENSE. It *does* involve a weekend in Vegas to gamble, but it's *not* turn-based. This article is nonsense. Can we Speedy it as such? Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most articles are short and poorly written after only one edit. If there's a policy that says Wikipedia is not a place for stub articles, then I could change my mind and be for deletion, but right now I am for keep, and I don't even play video games. This was filed for a VfD only 30 minutes after creation. The author could have come back and added improvements, but now he/she might have been put off. —Tokek 00:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.