Talk:Final Destination (SSBU)

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Deletion

Oppose deletion; I don't have the timestamp handy, but I believe it was confirmed during Treehouse Live that SSBU has a separate Final Destination and that the Battlefield omega from the E3 demo was a placeholder. Given that, and the fact that it's likely (although not yet confirmed) that this is FD given its similarity to other incarnations of FD and lack of indication of it being any other stage, I don't think it's too early to make this. Miles (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

Well at its core, the assumption that the stage in that screenshot is FD is a speculation. "We don't know what else it could be" does not really work as proof for me. Nevertheless I'll restore this if there is to be a discussion here. Serpent SKSig.png King 16:44, 28 July 2018 (EDT)
I put deletion on the page on the grounds that A. we don't have anything to go off of other than speculation and B. the only noteworthy thing about this is that it was made as Battlefield's omega in E3 to hide its true design. I'm again going to say that this page feels like it was made just for the sake of making it. Aidan, the College-Bound Rurouni 17:03, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

I also oppose deletion, because when the time comes in which we actually know about the Final Destination in this game, I believe it would be easier to expand on this article rather than restoring it. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Sonic Fan Leave a message if needed 20:43, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

Strong support. It's not hard to restore a page, and this article sounds very speculative and unprofessional. If we removed the speculation, it would have no information at all. It's not worth making a page yet when we haven't seen the stage. TheNuttyOne 21:59, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

Support. The existence of this page literally goes against the big notice banner on top of the website that's visible everywhere. If there's ONE reason to keep the article, it'd be that deleting it and creating it back later seems a bit redundant. But by all accounts, the article shouldn't have been created in the first place. --Gabo 2oo (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2018 (EDT)