Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penumbra (game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penumbra (game)

I prod'd this yesterday, and it was removed without comment by a new user, so I will simply copy-and-paste my prod reasoning: an article on a non-notable game made by non-notable developers (which the article admits is a "small team of students as a technology project"); the article is an advertisement; Penumbra+"Frictional Games" gets about 260 unique Google hits, but the vast majority are from sites from which the game (and tens of thousands of other free games) can be downloaded; none of the external links come from reliable sources. -- Kicking222 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete we're not a game advertising service. Akradecki 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). Shimeru 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a student project, as they admit. It'd have to be exceptional to pass the standards required an article here. --ColourBurst 20:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete This has been included on several disks in european magazines including LEVEL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs)
  • DO NOT Delecte.This game is / was a school project . I dont see why it should be deleted . it's not using wikipedia as an advertising agency . it's info! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.72.90 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. If it's a student project, then it's almost guaranteed to not be notable enough as there are billions upon billions of student projects. What makes this one so special? "It's info" doesn't suddenly make it notable, per the notability policy. The fact that it's been included on several disks in European magazines might be, but you can't prove it (do you even have the issues in question? Can you name them?). --ColourBurst 17:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have more nn article than this one. --Haham hanuka 10:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    That's no reason to keep this one. You are more than welcome to nominate them as well. alphaChimp laudare 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete. Just because this is a free game, it doesn't mean that it should be deleted! We have heaps of commercial game on Wikipedia, so if anything they are advertising. Don't get rid of it!
  • Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. alphaChimp laudare 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete. The software is/was innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way, yes it is, especially when you know it has been created by a team of volunteers and is free to play and download, and this is verifiable from reliable sources independent of the software developer, that is the difficult part... although some game sites think it's quite good:
    http://www.pcmweb.nl/software_review.jsp?productid=1093
    http://www.playwhat.com/GameDetails/frictionald/penumbra.html
    http://www.planetfreeplay.com/interview/12/
  • Delete - Does not pass WP:SOFTWARE requirement. It's that simple. CastorQuinn 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete. The software is innovative, significant, or influential in some specific way. Some other game may have the same innovative gameplay. Domsau2 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT delete - The software is unique in that there are very few games like it, and has graphics on par with commercial FPSes. Wanlorn
  • DO NOT delete - This game is notable for a number of reasons. It has quickly gained a strong following in the freeware scene. It boasts rather unique gameplay elements and it has a custom built 3D physics engine, similar to Half Life 2. There are many games that are listed in the freeware games' page that are far less deserving than this. The entry could possibly be cleaned up but marking it for deletion seems too extreme in my opinion.Slumlord
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.