Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Station 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Borderline but I think I'll go with not enough notability here. Woohookitty 10:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space Station 13

Does a totally obscure online RPG made by a one man dev team, using BYOND software deserve a wikipedia article? Why don't we make an article for every homebrew game out there on the internet? Since when is wikipedia a directory for everything to have ever existed? A lot of effort has obviously been put into this article, there is more information here than there is on it's original website where it belongs. Their current website however, does tell us they have 18 players. Hahnchen 00:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. EIGHTEEN PLAYERS!? Look at the forums, 211 members so far, it may not be huge, but it is NOT 18 members. While I do admit that the game may not be huge, it is growing and effort has been put into this article (As you said) and I myself am planning to add more to the article, I feel that this should stay, although that is just me and I feel biased. - Mrdie
    • Comment - Sorry, mistake made there. Maybe there were 18 players online? As the player count right now is 11. - Hahnchen 13:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, Wikipedia is not GameFaqs, nor an avenue for publicity. It's already mentioned in the BYOND article, and that would seem to be all it merits for the time being. Sorry, guys, come back when you've made it big. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. True, not yet notable, but very well written. More worthy of keeping than most elementary-school articles... Owen× ☎ 03:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • ... which, in fact, we delete unless notability far beyond the average elementary school is verified. Barno 22:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Not notable. Fairly well written, I'll give that... but 211 members isn't enough for wikipedia notability. Fieari 03:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. SS13 is ranked 10 on BYOND itself and has a LOT more than 18 players.Gparent
    • Comment - Ranked number 10 on BYOND is not notability, I doubt being ranked number 1 on that network is notability. It's like saying your flash cartoon was number 1 on newgrounds, it's meaningless, and that's a great first edit Gparent. - Hahnchen 13:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. SS13 has no need to "make it big". It has problems already with morons who can't role-play and sit there killing everyone. Feh, I don't even care. If you want to delete it, go ahead, it's only a "brag page". Phoenix Man
  • Weak delete. Fairly well written, but not notable enough, and still under development. — JIP | Talk
  • Weak keep. It's hard to see why it should be deleted, but I don't have a strong view on this one. --Apyule 09:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Article needs a some more work, but seems sound to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull 10:05, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: I must say that this article does indeed have more information about the game and it's aims than the website does. As previously stated this should be on the game's website. As is the nature of the game's community, I suspect that the information on here will not make it to the website. It is good, but sadly mis-placed. Stephen Badger 10:15 September 11 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP is not a web guide. The game would need to be significant, not just popular. The "Osama in a Blender" sort of thing gets a lot of hits and then is forgotten. In this case, it's an online game that isn't even finished, so, to have an article here, we have to be a crystal ball *and* a game site *and* a web guide. Geogre 11:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Geogre. Please don't screw over official policy in this manner. This is only of interest to utter gaming nerds. / Peter Isotalo 13:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - That's like saying that Red Shift is only of interest to utter scientific nerds. Even if SS13 doesn't affect our life, it's still a growing game and there's a wikipedia article to describe it. Is one subject about a good game worse than the one about Half-Life 2 ? Gparent.
  • keep, of interest to gaming nerds. Kappa 14:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 16:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a friggin' internet encyclopedia! If you think Space station 13 is too small for this site, you are a snob...

  • I don't particularly like the "Recommended games" links in the BYOND article, looks too addy. I would recommend listing the top 10 BYOND games in an objective manner on the BYOND article without the flurry of external links. They barely change. We don't need the promotion. As for the article itself. Delete if we delete forums for having too few members a game with 11 players online and a 211 member forum really isn't enough. A quick description in BYOND is fine, though and I would like to see this info on their website. (WP isn't a webhost). - Mgm|(talk) 17:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Does it matter?* I feel, being one of the chief Administrators and developers for Space Station 13, that I should step in and say a few words. First of all, nobody really cares weather this article exists or not. I don't care, nor do a lot of the community for SS13. However, there is the problem with the morality of the whole idea of deleting this wikopedia addition. This website is here purely for the sole purpose of providing it's users with information on more than what the standard encyclopedia offers. This means users can also add their own defintions of anything they want.
  • Why do you all go completely made over a insignificant post that hardly takes up any space at all? Maybe if NASA or another national space assosciation launched a Space Station, labled #13, that would be good reason to delete this addition, in order to make room for a more official addition. Otherwise, the name isn't required for anything else, and therefore your argument is fruitless.
  • Don't start with this advertising crap, because if I wanted to, I could find at least 50 additions advertising products. Such an insignificant addition shouldn't be 'worried' about in such a way. Do what you want, it doesn't bother me, the original creator of SS13 nor does it bother any of the important members of the SS13 community. - AZA
    • Then those 50 articles should also be deleted. Please nominate them ASAP. --DavidConrad 07:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this is a matter of inclusionism/deletionism. I nominated this article for deletion, not because it was badly written or incorrect, but because I feel that wikipedia should not just cover arbitrary topics of little encyclopedic worth. I think the article would be a lot better, and do BYOND and their games a lot more justice if it was hosted on a dedicated online games/BYOND wiki. I believe if we let "harmless" articles like this exist, they will multiply, and wikipedia will just be a bloated useless web directory. One pop up advertisment isn't that harmful, but a 50 popups on a page are. If you really didn't care about the fate of this article, why has so much been said about it by the ss13 team? - Hahnchen 21:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. android79 20:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think Space station 13 is too small for this site. I am a snob. TheMadBaron 20:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Delete it now It is irrelevant to the course of the universe and world events. The SS13 website has 3 links or something and a login thingo. That this article exists is a disgrace to my uncle's cat!! The article on socks is better than this article. Confusing rubbish. Burn it Burn it now!!!! Qlorplox
  • Keep. Keep it. Wikipedia isn't being "overcrowded" or anything. No harm being done. Dukefan
  • Delete. If the only argument for keeping is "no harm being done", it is not encyclopedic. Zoe 23:52, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - It is not the only argument, but we don't think it merits being deleted because similar articles about games such as Half-Life 2 exist, and HL2 is irrevelant to the course of the universe and world events too Gparent 23:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - He is comparing HL2 to Space Station 13. Let's get some perspective here, HL2 was one of the most anticipated games ever, used an experimental delivery system, covered not only in the specialist gaming press, but garnered attention in mass media as well. It will spawn countless mods, official add on packs and will be remembered by many. Space Station 13 is a small online game, with a tiny community, made using commercial tools by a bedroom group, more people are likely going to see the article then are going to play the game. Course of the universe? That's not your criteria for notability, that's your straw man. - Hahnchen 00:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment. Just to bolster the above, consider that Half-life 2 had sold more than 1.7 million copies in 2004 alone. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment. I expected that kind of answer. I was talking to the guy above that says that SS13 doesnt change anything in the world and stuff. I dont see how Half-Life 2 compares to the laws of physics. I can see the Source Engine having an entry, but Half-Life 2 ? A couple of other games use the engine too, it's not extraordinary. Why not have a half-Life 2 wiki instead ? The hack could be described it, the millions of mod his predecessors have spawned. Thing is, the SS13 entry isnt really harmful, and I dont know why we should remove it unless you really hate the game/games in general. Gparent
  • If it gets deleted, I wouldnt moan about it. But realy it is the principle of it. I enjoy looking through Wikipedia because I see it as the encyclopedia that DOES have everything in it. But whatever.
  • keep please it is a good article and is neutral and verifiable so why should we erase this that does not make sense Yuckfoo 04:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The proponents of this article need to review What Wikipedia is not, specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I certainly hope that Wikipedia never becomes "the encyclopedia that DOES have everything in it". I for one would certainly stop contributing. --DavidConrad 07:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not advocating it, but why would you stop contributing if wikipedia became that kind of encyclopedia? Kappa 22:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I am not voting, but I'd just like to point out that nothing in the link you posted indicates that this should be deleted. It's not any of the 7 things listed. Perhaps you meant to point to a different section of WP:NOT, in which case I suggest you clarify. --Jacqui M Schedler 02:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
      • He meant thing #0. The remaining 7 are major ones with strong consensus. But I hope you would not defend the article Pet names in Sunnyvale, CA because it is unfit for these 7 categories. mikka (t) 03:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 07:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or die. You guyssuck! LOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.34.50.254 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 September 2005.
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Space_Station_13_15f6.html"