Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkstar One
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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Darkstar One
From the article: "Darkstar One is a computer game currently ... in development .... It ... is scheduled for a release in the first half of 2006." There will be ample opportunity to write an encyclopedia article on the game once it actually exists. Delete DavidConrad 05:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete' WP:NOT etc. --nixie 05:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advert for non-existent game. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc. Colinmac 15:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- 18 total edits, 14 out of which are all to VfD/AfD.
*Keep, it's not uncommon for unreleased games to get a wikipedia article (see for example X3: Reunion). Furthermore I don't think that the "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball" criterion applies here, because preparation is in progress and merits encyclopedic inclusion (why else is the world full of game previews and developer diaries?). 84.61.30.153 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- The user has 2 edits, both of which have been to this page.
- Delete, promo for future product which has no current encyclopedic significance and no indication (verifiable or otherwise) that it ever will have encyclopedic significance, even if it meets the stated goals. One more space-sim game will not be sufficiently noteworthy unless it gets literally millions of users or generates some controversy widespread enough to get covered in major mainstream media or a bestselling book or something. (No, a few bits in the morass of gamer sites isn't enough by itself.) WP:NOT a gamer's guide. And I'll vote "delete" on X3: Reunion if nominated, too, unless verifiable evidence of impact (not just "a new game engine") is provided. Barno 01:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Barno: I don't think there is a "...not a gamer's guide" rule at WP:NOT. And honestly I can't find a rule that talks about "impact on the masses" or something like that, either. Quite on the contrary WP:NOT states in Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: "This means that there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." I really don't see why an empty Darkstar One page should be preferred over a page that actually provides some information, without violating the WP:NOT rules. 84.61.30.153 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- As of a couple of months ago, "Wikipedia is not a gamer's guide" was explicitly part of WP:NOT. I don't know when it was removed, but I didn't see any discussion of its removal. (That page gets edited daily or more, including non-consensus changes which are often reverted.) "Wikipedia is not a web guide" is another point that has been removed, and is relevant. Regardless of where or how it is communicated, Wikipedia:Importance still applies. There are disagreements about how to apply it; but the only reason that Pokemon characters, for example, are kept is that editors demonstrate that vast numbers of people in many countries pay attention to them, not merely because they're something verifiable on the internet. I agree with Dpbsmith's proposed wording for future stuff: "Information on unreleased products, software, games, or movies may be appropriate when the plans for the product are so notable that they are affecting many people in the present." Can you demonstrate verifiably that this is the case for Darkstar One? If so, I will change my vote. Otherwise, not until the program actually achieves the sort of status usually shorthanded as "notability". If a professor (someone with influence on human lives far less trivial than a video game) is required by WP:BIO to be "more well known and more published than an average college professor", why should games get a free pass from WP's general standards? Barno 23:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Barno: I don't think there is a "...not a gamer's guide" rule at WP:NOT. And honestly I can't find a rule that talks about "impact on the masses" or something like that, either. Quite on the contrary WP:NOT states in Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: "This means that there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." I really don't see why an empty Darkstar One page should be preferred over a page that actually provides some information, without violating the WP:NOT rules. 84.61.30.153 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiable, does no harm. -- Vardion 01:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Does no good. Quale 02:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- It gives people information about something if they want it. That's always good. If we can provide this information, and it doesn't do any harm, why shouldn't we? -- Vardion 21:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- If people would've wanted "do no harm" to be a keep criteria, I think it would've been included in the official policy. I think it was skipped simply because it includes anything. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. / Peter Isotalo 22:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- It gives people information about something if they want it. That's always good. If we can provide this information, and it doesn't do any harm, why shouldn't we? -- Vardion 21:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Gamecruft. / Peter Isotalo 22:46, 19 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
