Deletion of Diablo 3

Comment: What encyclopedic value is there in keeping Diablo 3 in its own article? What little information that would be left after your suggestion can just as easily be added to Diablo (computer game). There is absolutely no reason why this article should exist. And even though it might not fail the guideline , it still fails  which is policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:NOT)

Comment: Please be |civil when replying. I just wanted to throw my two cents in, and it feels like everyone's jumping on my ass because of it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: Wikipedia is |not a crystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Sorry folks, this kind of article just isn't going to cut it. We don't make things that |don't exist yet. Once D3 becomes a confirmed reality, I am sure the world we be more than happy to receive this wiki article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I think that falls under |Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Yep, that covers it. It also seems to be largely |original research, for example saying that because World of Diablo is trademarked, it hints at Diablo 3. It could also be solely to stop someone else from attempting to use the title, and have nothing to do with a new Diablo game. After all, GTA has trademarked GTA:Tokyo, GTA: Borneo and a few others, but that in no way means that there are actual plans to make those games
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per  a crystal ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: My thoughts as well. I forgot about  as well. Thank you for mentioning it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: There have been a few bad arguments here I'd like to address.   Most come from WP:NOT.  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but that doesn't mean that diablo 3 has not had discussion or cultural relevance.  Being a crystal ball would be to assert it exists, or that to speculate on content.  Much like windows "longhorn" was never a released product, it was still a valid target for documented information.  There's at least one solid reference on the page.  That meets erifiable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)