Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl
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 of the debate was - kept
[edit] S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl
Undeleted following very close vote on VfU. Now listed here. (Note that I am listing as an administrative task - my listing is not an endorsement for deletion. Snowspinner 17:41, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. When the game will be released (though I heard the release was postponed for half a year) someone would create an article anyway. Grue 17:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems factual. Interesting to some people. Thue | talk 19:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Some unreleased games are notable. Not this one. Gamaliel 19:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, this game has been discussed on all major gaming sites since it was first announced, I've heard countless rumours about the story and the capabilities of the engine. Pretty notable as far as unreleased games are concerned. (The article as it now stands, however, contains next to nothing in terms of facts and would definitely benefit from a rewrite) -- Ferkelparade π 19:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: four lines and three links is not a good ratio, but the reason for deletion is that it's vaporware, and this is an article that is speculation. You can't verify the future game, so it's not appropriate to talk about it in an encyclopedia. After it's released, people can write about it. Before it's released, it can only be a section/example at a "upcoming" or "vapo(u)rware" article. Geogre 19:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, as unverifiable (unless someone can demonstrate a way to write an article about a future product that is a) meaningful, b) verifiable, and c) NPOV, i.e. not a reflection of a company's marketing promises). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Has this game been demoed anywhere yet? Has a reviewer played a beta? If this is absolutely speculative, i.e. pure vaporware, without any notable history presented, it does not belong. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)- Keep. The restored page is actually not the one, which was originally deleted. :( The original text was much more detailed, but one stupid admin deleted it for being an advert (which it wasn't) and it was quickly replaced by the version you now see (see the history of these sad mishaps at [[1]]). The game has been demoed, it is almost complete (to be released in sptring 2005), it has a lot of innovations, excellent graphics, etc. You can read about it in many previews/interviews, etc. on any gaming site. You could read about it in the now lost article too, let's stop this deletion nonsense, so that the decent article can be restored here. Paranoid 21:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- When the article was undeleted, the entire history was undeleted. There is no "now lost article." You can view every edit, including the one that was deleted, and so can anyone else. Which revision is the one you think we should be discussing? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think he means edits by NrarerN, which aren't available to view. Grue
- But all the edits by User:NrarerN to this article are available to view. Just in case it isn't clear: an "undelete" restores the entire article history back to its initial, first-ever creation. An undelete does not just roll back to the last deletion, it restores everything. There are no earlier revisions of this article. All revisions of this article are available for view. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think he means edits by NrarerN, which aren't available to view. Grue
- When the article was undeleted, the entire history was undeleted. There is no "now lost article." You can view every edit, including the one that was deleted, and so can anyone else. Which revision is the one you think we should be discussing? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- In general, I'd be wary of speculation about unpublished games. But a quick Google search shows over 125,000 references, which does seem to establish adequate notability. Keep. --jpgordon{gab} 21:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Under the circumstances, changing to keep. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 22:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I say Delete; as with the French revolution, it's much too early to judge whether this game is an influential or significant addition to the field or genre. After it has been out for a few years it should be a trivial matter to recreate the text. Also, if it ever returns, there needs to be a redirect pages from 'Stalker', because no-one in the entire world is ever going to type 'S.T.A.L.K.E.R.' into the search box, in the history of all that will be, ever. - Ashley Pomeroy 21:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as it stands now. If someone could rewrite the article to make it comprehensible, then I would change my vote to keep. DCEdwards1966 21:39, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unreleased game because of the inherent difficulties with verifiability and NPOV. Rossami (talk) 23:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm curious why you say this. NPOV simply means acknowledging all sides of an issue and attributing them responsibly. In the case of an unreleased video game, this is still possible - one cites promotional material, etc, and cites it as promotional material. That's not an NPOV violation. Nor are there verifiability problems. Again, you announce what is reported about the game, and, in some circumstances, what widespread speculation there is on it. Snowspinner 23:50, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Pre-release, I believe the article is almost impossible to be NPOV because there is no other side to the issue. The only facts available are the promotional materials. Citing the material as promotional solves some of the problem, but we have decided in other areas that promotional materials alone are not sufficient to make a topic encyclopedic. For example, articles about real products and websites are routinely deleted if the article's sole content boils down to "advertising" or "spam". Articles about real people are deleted as "vanity" if they are one-sided and promotional and can not be made into balanced articles. Citing it as a resume is not enough. I see pre-released games (and pre-released movies, CDs, etc) as the same basic problem. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. The project is not always best served by attempting to cover every topic immediately. As you say, there are always exceptions. Those exceptions require a judgement call and are appropriate to discuss here. I have not yet seen evidence to convince me that an exception is appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The article about an unreleased game is more than just a summary of features, claims of revolutionary AI and a pretty screenshot. There are tons of facts surrounding the development process, which can be independently verified and are both interesting and encyclopedic. For example (all valid for Stalker):
- inspiration for the game - book, movie - common themes
- history of development - announcements, conflicts, scandals, publisher found/lost/changed
- a conference for independent game journalists with a trip to Chernobyl and a meeting with one of the "liquidators"
- opinions of these journalists
- leaked alpha, verified facts about the engine
- involvement of 3rd parties - writers, musicians
- There is a lot of verifiable and NPOV info that can be included about the game. Paranoid 17:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The article about an unreleased game is more than just a summary of features, claims of revolutionary AI and a pretty screenshot. There are tons of facts surrounding the development process, which can be independently verified and are both interesting and encyclopedic. For example (all valid for Stalker):
- Comment: Pre-release, I believe the article is almost impossible to be NPOV because there is no other side to the issue. The only facts available are the promotional materials. Citing the material as promotional solves some of the problem, but we have decided in other areas that promotional materials alone are not sufficient to make a topic encyclopedic. For example, articles about real products and websites are routinely deleted if the article's sole content boils down to "advertising" or "spam". Articles about real people are deleted as "vanity" if they are one-sided and promotional and can not be made into balanced articles. Citing it as a resume is not enough. I see pre-released games (and pre-released movies, CDs, etc) as the same basic problem. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. The project is not always best served by attempting to cover every topic immediately. As you say, there are always exceptions. Those exceptions require a judgement call and are appropriate to discuss here. I have not yet seen evidence to convince me that an exception is appropriate in this case. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm curious why you say this. NPOV simply means acknowledging all sides of an issue and attributing them responsibly. In the case of an unreleased video game, this is still possible - one cites promotional material, etc, and cites it as promotional material. That's not an NPOV violation. Nor are there verifiability problems. Again, you announce what is reported about the game, and, in some circumstances, what widespread speculation there is on it. Snowspinner 23:50, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not verifiable, not yet notable. --Improv 03:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Weak delete as it presently stands. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ashley Pomeroy has it right. -- Hoary 06:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Weak keep; It's vaporware, but the Google test shows that it's vaporware that has a decent amount of interest invested in it. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 06:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- KeepSnowspinner 07:03, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Just so you know, there are actually two articles on this game, Stalker (computer game) and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. The first one is named incorrectly and should be redirected. Grue 07:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It's done. Gamaliel 19:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable game. anthony 警告 18:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but someone with a deep interest in computer games should monitor the game's development. Good, harmless substub for now. - Lucky 6.9 20:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, vapourware should generally not have articles here. Possibly it could go to wikinews? --Regebro 11:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Why is it vapourware? It's a game, which was shown (hands-on) to journalists from major gaming sites. It has tons of screenshots and videos produced that everyone (not just journalists) can check at any time, it has a release date in spring 2005 and it was postponed only once (from the end of 2004 to spring 2005). Alpha code of the game was leaked and commercially released by pirates in Russia. It doesn't meet the definition of vapourware any more than Half-Life 2 (which wasn't shown to journalists and which was indefinitely postponed under very suspicious circumstances), which had an article a year in advance or more. Paranoid 12:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It hasn't been release it's as of yet vapourware. --Regebro 12:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Why is it vapourware? It's a game, which was shown (hands-on) to journalists from major gaming sites. It has tons of screenshots and videos produced that everyone (not just journalists) can check at any time, it has a release date in spring 2005 and it was postponed only once (from the end of 2004 to spring 2005). Alpha code of the game was leaked and commercially released by pirates in Russia. It doesn't meet the definition of vapourware any more than Half-Life 2 (which wasn't shown to journalists and which was indefinitely postponed under very suspicious circumstances), which had an article a year in advance or more. Paranoid 12:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Future products. Please, everyone who voted "delete" because it's a future product, put Doom (movie) on the VfD too and vote to delete it. And of course, put Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith here too. Then do the same for New Horizons NASA project. And repeat for every existing Wikipedia article about a future product or project that is still in early stages. Paranoid 15:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment 1: I reformatted your comment because the transclusion doesn't always handle subheadings well. Comment 2: By long tradition, we take these nominations on a case-by-case basis. The fact that those articles have not been deleted is not a valid argument that this particlar article should be kept. However, if those articles are nominated, I will promise to be consistent. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The fact that those articles have reached a state when they are large, informative and sufficiently good not to be listed on VfD is an indication that the article for Stalker can reach the same state before the game is released (if it's finally left alone by deletionists and is allowed to grow). I am just saying that articles about future products can be good and so, the fact that a product is unreleased is not by itself sufficient reason to delete the article. Paranoid 17:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment 1: I reformatted your comment because the transclusion doesn't always handle subheadings well. Comment 2: By long tradition, we take these nominations on a case-by-case basis. The fact that those articles have not been deleted is not a valid argument that this particlar article should be kept. However, if those articles are nominated, I will promise to be consistent. Rossami (talk) 17:12, 5 Dec 2004 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
