Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyro: A Realm Beyond

Spyro: A Realm Beyond

Spyro: A Realm Beyond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing notable here and WP:TOOSOON at best. Tried to draftify but was immediately reverted. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It is a new entry in a very popular franchise that recently got announced. It was featured on Xbox's Game Showcase, and articles were written about it by IGN, Eurogamer, Variety, and The Guardian. I don't understand how this would not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Cloweee (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It also already has a store page on places like Steam. Seems notable enough to me AkaAko (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• keep - there’s plenty of references for it to remain, it’s a notable franchise and information is likely to further expand the entry rapidly considering the game is likely to launch within 9 months - delays will only add. Little reason to draftify.

Awkwarddd (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I have improved the article, and I believe it deserves to remain rather than be deleted. The article can be further improved as more information about the game is announced. Ryan York (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete and keep working on the draft ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Draftify, this has potential for improvement but is not yet ready for mainspace. The article has been improved by User:Ryan York, so I change my vote to Keep. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 08:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Cloweee. Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I must have edited while in you were in the midst of a draft move. No objections to dratifying this. There should also be a history merge ASAP. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete for now. Article has apparently been draftified successfully and a deletion in mainspace will allow it to be moved back when the time is right. Agree that it is TOOSOON to be in mainspace. GSK 18:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • In light of the article being improved significantly by User:Ryan York, I change my vote to Keep. GSK 16:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this article does end up being deleted in favor of the draft, I would suggest moving the existing mainspace article into the draft, as it is clearly the superior of the two at this point. GSK 16:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify; this will inevitably be in mainspace, being a main installment in a major video game series, but it's clearly not ready yet. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 23:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • As with many others, I'm changing my vote to keep per recent edits. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 15:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Spyro for now. It is WP:TOOSOON to have an article (unless we have preview coverage/interview in the coming days). OceanHok (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY, now that previews/interviews are used. OceanHok (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify. TOOSOON; Certainly notable, but IMO too specific to warrant a redirect. If it has already been draftified, then deletion for now is the only remaining step. Quibilia, et al. (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I concur that the changes are satisfactory for retention. I change my vote to Keep. Quibilia, et al. (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect. Not enough information, make a draft.

• Draftify is the appropriate solution here - it may have been reverted, but that's a behavioural and not a procedural issue with whoever's reverting, is it not? As others have said, this will almost certainly enter mainspace in the long run. This is pretty clearly since established as a keep. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The announcement didn't reveal much but everything it did reveal is well sourced. Why delete this only to inevitably recreate it in a few months? Connor Behan (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  So much this! Like, there's already store pages for this. Even if I feel like the pre-order nonsense has gotten a little out of hand lately, it's clearly an established game already, not just a rumor or whatever. Plus there's already further info cropping up about it. AkaAko (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• That's assuming the release date doesn't get postponed or cancelled. We don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL that lets us see into the future and know for certain that "in a few months" an article will be warranted. Either way, draft space is better for games that only have run-of-the-mill announcements without a clearly established release date. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep It might just be my past as a journalist talking, but it seems like it'd be better to keep this page up than just remake it further down the road. Some information is more than no information, and there are official pages for the game already AkaAko (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

(Also sorry if my formatting is a bit off, I'm relatively new here) AkaAko (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wouldn't need to be remade from scratch. Wikipedia has "Draft articles" where articles can be worked on before being published, and there's a draft of this at Draft:Spyro: A Realm Beyond. This article got turned into a draft but then split back into a main article due to a miscommunication between two users. ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I see many pre-release video game articles at AFC and NPP. I feel like there needs to be a clearer guidance on how WP:TOOSOON applies, because I think it can be simultaneously true that the current informal practice is to avoid passing articles for upcoming games founded only on press releases and announcements, whilst also accepting managing these can create odd procedural outcomes and that it doesn't take guesswork to anticipate that major studio games are going to attain general notability. Is this a conversation worth having on the WP:VG talk page? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  There is still some element of WP:CRYSTAL involved. For example, let's say one makes an article about Elder Scrolls VI the moment it was announced. The game's still vaporware 8 years later, and it's highly debatable whether a page on it should even exist now. No one can predict whether a major game will actually be released, and the game can still be cancelled if some corporate bigwig somewhere woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Until a game is virtually locked in for release or has significant coverage in its pre-release state, it is too soon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree - some form of guidance is needed because pre-release certainty and significant coverage can coexist, or not. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agree that some guidance on this would be ideal and save everyone a lot of time at these AfDs. Yojo98 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep It will need to be created anyway and contains relevant info already. Victor.spain (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep It is official, but deleting it is just going to make it much worse to do more work. In addition, it is yet to be further developed so it's best to let the article grow down the road and keeping it maintained. 20chances (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep keep with current coverage and maintain with additional news sr1jj (talk), 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep — Meets notability criteria; I see a lot of reporting on this title from great sources. Zero reason to delete. IPhoneEnthusiast (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Spyro#Spyro Reignited Trilogy and Spyro: A Realm Beyond (2018–present). It's still WP:TOOSOON for a page, though eventually it will be recreated with more information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The best response to canvassing is a thorough source analysis. Can one of our AfD regulars help, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep. New information about the game is coming out regularly through WP:RS. To address concerns raised about how to apply WP:TOOSOON, I propose adding sections similar to WP:UNRELEASED and WP:FUTUREALBUM to WP:NVG for clarity. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - So you mean to tell me all the reliable sources on earth aren't saving an article on an upcoming game if it's simply created before a certain date? Lordy loo you people are why chatbots are so popular. Americanfreedom (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Civility IPhoneEnthusiast (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  BOTH reliable sources AND significant coverage are needed. The lack of any information on the game beyond "ooh it has Spyro and is a new game where you can fly around freely" is the problem, and results in an undercooked article where notability is still a wild guess. An article with lots of hype and no substance would be the kind of thing chatbots specialize in, but not Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  The consensus is that coverage is significant. IPhoneEnthusiast (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I definitely see the WP:TOOSOON concerns but I think this one meets GNG, there are enough reliable sources with information from developer interviews and commentary on the trailers. MidnightMayhem (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the previous relister noted, a thorough source analysis would be helpful if canvassing may have compromised the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep: seems to pass GNG Jishara (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Sufficient coverage to surpass WP:TOOSOON. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment This AFD prompted a discussion on the talk page of WP:TOOSOON that may be worth a chat: . I'd be curious whether editors have views so WP:TOOSOON discussions can better reflect consensus. VRXCES (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm more than satisfied with the rewrite. Quibilia, et al. (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Why are there concerns for canvassing to warrant two relists? I don't see concrete evidence of canvassing in this deletion discussion, in the article's talk page, or in the article's edit history. OceanHok (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Notability established by reliable sources Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

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.