Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Legacy (game)

Add links
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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Legacy[edit]

Release date June 27, 2006. Substantial article with no sources - probable WP:OR. Weblink for developers, no article. No evidence of player base, innovation, external coverage etc. per WP:SOFTWARE Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, also appears to be a WP:VAIN article. --Porqin 12:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is still new and has content that needs refining. Infomation and screenshots were taken from the main website, or from what has been said by developers on the forum (the information is publically available for use), so no, its not original content, but I find acurate information from reliable resources much more important, don't you? As for player base (I think this means the ammount of players it gets), the game has many 1000's of players. According to the developer, it was recorded that the game got around 172 new account sign ups in less than 12 hours! As for Vainity issue, it is no different from any other games page I have seen. The title, screenshots, infomation about the game, links to fan sites etc.... Theres no text such as "greatest game", "best game", "you'll die if you dont play" etc. I've tried to keep it as neutral as possible. So my vote goes with "dont delete". If you want something changed, leave a note on the talk page, or do it yourself. --K776 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Thousands" of accounts is really not all that many. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to a dev on the forum, 172 or so new members signed up in a matter of hours. 172 (users per 12 hours) * 2 (2 lots of 12 in 24 :P) * 7 = 2400+ in only a week. Now those wont be the exact figures obviously because on/off peak signups, but it should give some idea that when I said thousands, I obviously understated. --K776 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That still isn't very much. World of Warcraft, for example, had around six million players in February 2006. The US release was in November 2004, so, assuming that players signed up at a constant rate, that comes out to roughly a hundred thousand new players per week. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thats not a good comparison. World of Warcraft is not shockwave based, and it's made by a big company with funding, not an individual in his/her spare time. World of Warcraft also had a prevous player base, from its 3 predecessors (Warcraft I, II, and III), starting with Warcraft in 1994 (12 years ago). World of Warcraft is also finished. Quantum Legacy is still in the pre-beta stages, but has been made public. --05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Point is, 172 users in a 12-hour period isn't all that many. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I said less than 12 hours. For all I know, it could have been in 5 hours or even 30 minutes. I just dont have time to change my timezone to that of the dev who posted the stats to find out what the time difference was. --K776 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This game - and this comment may be biased, note - is quite good, and still in the beta stages (I am a tester, myself). To delete this page would not accomplish anything, that I can tell, except to upset the programmers, testers, etc. There are 438 software companies listed on this site, and I recognize a few as being in on gaming (RealNetworks among them). I did not see any of the high-profile companies (such as THQ, but it is in the database of WP). To conclude: do not delete the QL page, as it is just as valid as the page for Descent: FreeSpace - The Great War, and other games.--Bigfootti 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable, in failure of WP:SOFTWARE, 100% advertisement... it's spam and little more. -- Kicking222 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then, change it so it suits the guidelines or tell people what to do to make sure it doesn't get deleted. --K776
      • The first question we have to consider is whether Quantum Legacy is a worthy subject for an article in Wikipedia at all. The criteria we use to determine that can be found at WP:SOFTWARE. If the game doesn't meet any of the criteria there, changing the article won't help. But if you think the game does meet at least one of the criteria at WP:SOFTWARE, then clearly indicate in the article how it meets those criteria, and cite reliable sources to help prove that. Then come back here and explain that you have edited the article and how the game satisfies WP:SOFTWARE. I will offer a neutral recommendation for now to encourage you to do that. --Metropolitan90 04:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to WP:SOFTWARE, QL comes under number 2. It is innovative and significant, being the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector. --K776 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is not spam it is just trying to get more people to join with the game theres nothing wrong with that another thing is there are other articles just like it here on wikipedia and you are not deleting them it doesnt seem fair or even make sense to delete this page because its trying to get people to try out this game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk8ter823 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This game is unique in that it is a full-version game that runs directly in your browser. I think that this fact satisfies part 2 of WP:SOFTWARE well enough. And I don't think that it can be called advertising because it was not written by anyone affiliated with Four Thirty One Interactive, it was written by a group of players of the game. As someone has already said, it is just as valid as the article about Descent: FreeSpace - The Great War. That is why I vote to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.27.115 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Looking at all the delete votes, they cite WP:VAIN, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:OR as reasons why this article should be deleted. I believe the reason QL is fine under Software has been stated clearly enough already, the article is not vain, as it has been written and edited by players of the game who weren't involved in the programming, design or promotion of it, and it is not original research, all statements made in the article are either clearly labelled as opinion/speculation or can be verified by four-thirty one. --Jabor 04:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question isn't whether the statements can be verified by the game publisher/developer, but whether the statements can be verified by independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Verify independently? 2 things: (One) Play it yourself, and offer judgement; (Two) recruit people from WP, and ask them to play and offer judgement. --Bigfootti 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I played the game myself, or other editors played the game themselves, that would still be original research. Furthermore, if the goal is to prove that the game is unique because it is a full-version game that runs directly in your browser, or because it's the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector, just playing the game would not prove that, since other games might meet those criteria too without my knowing it. On the other hand, if reviewers for, say, Computer Gaming World or PC Gamer confirmed those claims, that would be independent verification. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Metro90, it is hard to get a game from an up-and-coming company into the limelight for such a review. WP may be the best way to do so. :) --Bigfootti 16:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Metropolitan90, are you saying that if I got it listed somewhere in say NetGuide (a NZ (and I think Au also) publication, then the page could stay? Or does it need to be in a US magazine? --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • NetGuide looks like a legitimate reliable source at first glance, although I personally am not familiar enough with it to say so definitively, and of course other editors may disagree. But, in general, there is no requirement that a reliable source be from any particular country. --Metropolitan90 04:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Trouble is, even if NetGuide decided to publish it in their next issue, thats still two weeks away, and dont these types of debates only last 5 days? How would someone go about suspending the page (or archiving it) till its published? Cause a lot of work has been put into the article and deleting it would be a waste. --K776 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment: That is a False dilemma. Wikipedia admins can undelete articles at any time. Or alternatively (supposing the article can't be undeleted), you can take the content of the article,move it to a personal website, and improve upon it yourself. Or, if you really like the wiki format, create your own Quantum Legacy wiki --Mitaphane talk 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. Gets 3000 google hits. The game should be notable before being added to Wikipedia, not the other way around. (also, I'm not sure what to make of the WP page being used in other efforts to to get the word out [1], but whichever) --Interiot 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link on the digg to the wiki was for more information as its the only page at the moment that has lots of information on it without having to be searched for. So dont make a decision based on that :P --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Interiot. Don't try promoting non-notable things on Wikipedia in order to make them notable; it never works, even when they aren't found for a while, and deleting them takes up valuable time/energy. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who said it was for promoting the game? The game already has more than enough players. And it is notable. As said above, "According to WP:SOFTWARE, QL comes under number 2. It is innovative and significant, being the first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector." --K776 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I seriously doubt this was the first multiplayer Shockwave game - I'm pretty sure RuneScape was there first. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, Zetawoof. Runescape is Java based. I am a programmer, and could give proof of RS's Java-ness, but I'd just be over people's heads.--Bigfootti 10:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Read it again Zetawoof. I said "first Shockwave based, browser or downloadable based, multiplayer game of its kind to offer concepts such as multi-time and multi-sector". I know there are other shockwave mp games. --K776 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whatever. Point is, I don't think there's anything it's doing that hasn't been done before in some way, shape, or form. The mere combination of pre-existing concepts (like "multi-time" and "multi-sector", whatever those mean) doesn't really add up to something really "innovative and significant", particularly as there are no reliable sources confirming that this combination of features is indeed unique. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. It does seem to meet number 2 of SOFTWARE as K776 points out, but I'm not seeing any third party sources to that effect; it's pretty easy to simply claim to be innovative. --Rhwawn Talk to Rhwawn 03:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be some sockpuppetting going on here for the keep votes - K776 is a new user who created the page and exclusively edited this article, as is Bigfootti (8 edits, joined on the 26th), as well as 24.109.27.115 (3 edits, same day), Sk8ter823 (2 edits, same day) and Jabor (3 edits, including one on this page). --SevereTireDamage 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had mentioned on 2 QL forums that the wiki page was nominated for deletion (nothing wrong with that?) and that people could head on over and make their vote whether or not they wanted to keep or delete it and told them the decision is theirs so their decisions they make are in no way mine. --K776 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue, however, is that this is a discussion and not a vote. Just because there are 100 different accounts that say "Keep" does not guarantee the article will be kept. Mo0[talk] 05:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game isn't doing anything but trying to be known why would you delete it's page when the game hasn't even come out yet.TYRQ
  • Delete. Blatant advertisement for an ultimately non-notable (albeit rather shiny-looking) web game. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the open beta development path and browser / download approach seem worthy of mention. Ace of Risk 12:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The title is using a very unique system of content delivery and method of displaying that content. Its unique for that alone, as for the notability of the game outside this new system I am not sure. However seeing as they are the first to attempt, or at least publically acknowledge this method I feel its notable. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "system of content delivery" and "method of displaying that content" do you mean - Shockwave? That's hardly unique. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Delete (revoted, see comment below) - Wow, the sock puppetry. You really should have brought only one person in here to argue for keeping it, since you're all saying the same thing, and none of the arguments are grounded in wikipedia policy. QL does NOT pass point 2 of the software guidlines - read the last clause of that sentence and you'll understand. You and I do not qualify as reliable sources. Basically, wikipedia is not free advertising. You've stated that you're not trying to advertise, but then encourage people to try it out for themselves. That's blatant advertising. Wikipedia is here to report the findings of *other* peer-reviewed publications, that's why verifiability and no original research are so important. Advertise elsewhere and let someone else not affiliated with the game make the article AFTER it becomes famous (and yes, testers are affiliated).129.61.46.16 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
    • The edits address the Vanity and NPOV problems in the original version, which certainly helps and shows good faith on the creators' part. I still don't think it passes the verifiability and original research policies (which are two of the most important policies here), since no independent peer reviewed publications have been shown to cover the game to date. And that is not Wikipedia's job. The edits are making it into a useful article, one that would be acceptable if it becomes notable enough without wikipedia's help. 68.106.198.28 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
      • If I've read it correctly, original research means information that isn't reliable/doesn't have a reliable source, right? Well, everything on that page has been said by the developer of the game, Miles. How much more reliable can you get? --K776 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, not exactly. Let me give you an example - if Stephen Hawkings were to come to me and say that his theory on Hawking radiation was patent nonsense, then that would not be acceptable to be put on wikipedia, even if I could provide proof of the email. If the New York Times reported that he said it, it would be reported that "in 2006, Stephen Hawkings raised objections about..." on a wikinews article, and might get a mention on the Hawking radiation page in a controversy section. However, until he published his findings in a peer reviewed scientific publication, the article would retain the incorrect information, as it is the most verifiable. I realize that it's difficult to draw analogies between hard science and small online games, but similar standards apply. If the game developer has publicly stated the design intentions of the game in a press release (or equivalent), then it can be mentioned that they said that - but one man's personal opinion, no matter how intimately he knows his subject, is Original Research until it has been peer reviewed. Ok, this is getting long, but I hope that helped clarify the policy as I understand it. 68.106.198.28 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Comment - Even more wow as I try to edit the article to remove the worst of the advertising and to tag all of the things that might not be advertising if they can find sources to back them up...the article uses the word "you" in reference to you as a player so many times that I'm not going to bother trying to remove it. That's blatant and terribly bad encyclopedic style, and wonderful advertisement style. Rewrite the article with an emphasis on how independent publications have reported on the game, instead of why someone should sign up. Otherwise, it is an advertisement and has no place in an encyclopedia. 129.61.46.16 14:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
    • All references to "you" have been place with "a player". --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete i do not believe that this game is notable at this time, but that in the near future it will be. all those angry developers can request undeletion when their game meets WP:SOFTWARE. --Samael775 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This might become one of those great information sites about games...why would we want to delete it? -Qsik-
    • Comment Because, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it does become notable in the future, it can be recreated, but for now it's simply not. Wikipedia reports, but does not promote. And if it does eventually become notable enough, the article would *not* look anything like the current one, so there's not much point in saving the current version. 129.61.46.16 18:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Quantum Delete - Notability first, article second. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^ Pointless comment above. ^ I checked the 'under developement' category page, and there are a large number of games on there which have had little to no large-scale publicity. This article has just enough information to get a reader interested, and has a full web site to back it up. I looked up some other UD games, and found Galaxylife, whose release date is marked as 'soon'. QL, on the other hand, is in open beta, and is arguably full-featured, compared to some post-release games. The largest obstacle to the release of QL is thhe fact that some bugs still need ironing out, and somewhere around half the (SP) storyline is unpublished (to the testers).--Bigfootti 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Fails notability, unreleased, WP's not a crystal ball. Thank you, come again. I just like a little humour at times. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In the case of "under development" games, those articles are (or should be) nothing more than stubs, placeholders that give information in a press release (usually circulated in peer-reviewed publications) about expected release information. If the article is basically blanked and says that QL is an upcoming MMORPG with X release date, will be set in X world, and will run in the X environment, then that's all the article needs. The fact that other articles don't do that just means that other game developers are abusing wikipedia as well. The current article does nothing more than gush about how great it is and how you should sign up and play. Wikipedia covers a wide range of topics that a paper encyclopedia wouldn't because of space constraints, but it is still an encyclopedia, not free advertising space. 129.61.46.16 20:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
        • This discussion could go on until QL is oficially released, and we'd still not have a satisfactory solution. QL is a free and open beta, effectively released, and being upgraded and bug-checked regularly. As such, it coincides with both full-release and UD game headings.-Bigfootti 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Josh, if say 99% of the page was to be deleted out then, would that means the actual article could stay there until it is notable, then be reverted back to the revision atm? Or is that againsr wiki policy? --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - let it grow organically. GrapePie 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep three diferent editors and an article on a fairly bit stratergy gaming website count strongly in it's favour. Needs POV tagging and hence POV fixing urgently, however. Would perhaps be best merged into a list of garage/bedroom games. LinaMishima 20:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please clarify: POV? -Bigfootti 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point Of View. As in (follow the link) WP:NPOV. Vizjim 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • POV has been neutralised to some extent :D --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this WP:NPOV article. Vizjim 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 The Quantum Legacy article has been changed based on 129.61.46.16's feedback (regarding citations and facts)
 Please re-evaluate the article based on WP:VAIN, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV (not WP:SOFTWARE) and continue to offer comments on where it would be improved by editing the article or the talk page. Thanks, K776 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, unless good verifiable sources meeting WP:RS are cited that say that this game is important. Currently, no sources are cited at all, and all external links are to sites which fail to meet reliable source guidelines because they are to forums to which anyone can post or to a website whose content is controlled by Four Thirty One Interactive. Such sites could be acceptable sources of information on game content, but they are not reliable as an indication that the game is of any importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont suppose MoFunZone or StrategyInformer count as reliable sources? They are pretty common websites. Does it have to be published print articles? --K776 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither site has any significant information - all they're doing, as far as I can tell, is linking to the game. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The medium doesn't matter - it's perfectly acceptable to use online sources. Those particular websites, however, don't say anything notable about the game that could really be cited in a wikipedia article. 68.106.198.28 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
        • Actually, its verifying information (which everyone wants). Strategy Informer clearly says in its description "it will also feature a unique "multi-sector" style of game play", making that inovative and significant with a reliable source, right? It even says "This innovative breakthrough.....". What more do you need? --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What more do we need? A review that was written independently. That text was taken straight from the Quantum Legacy site. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, most sites and probably some publications wouldn't do any better. Theres not a lot of ways to say the same thing. --K776 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sure they would. All the major game review sites - Gamespot, for example - write their own reviews. Using the text from the product web page is on about the same level as would be using the back-cover text to "review" a book. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mofun zone appears to just be a generic game information page. Instinct says that the website listings are not limited to the notable. LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Strategy Informer entry contains a link to an interview with the developers which gives the game merit. However a single source is rarely enough LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Lina - the single reference to the interview helps (and the interview is an example of what should be cited in an article), not exactly enough, but it helps. JoshWook 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is rare of anyone voting on an Af to go check an AfD'd website's forum, find the "omg, AfD!" thread and make helpfull comments. This is, thankfully, one of my little hobbies. K776 is to be aclaimed for being unusually gracious in this debate. Posted that:
1) Article is likely to be deleted due to lack of notariety
2) Notariety should be easy to get to allow the restoration of K776's work
LinaMishima 02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also worth noting that correct name should be "Quantum Legacy (game)", since there is a book by this name about Quantum physics. (seperate comment as is different point) LinaMishima 02:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll change it once I'm done editing then. :D --K776 05:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable, fails WP:WEB --Peephole 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent, reliable sources used to provide any evidence of being notable in accordance with the proposed standards at WP:SOFTWARE or the standards at WP:WEB. GRBerry 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated the daily AFD page to reflect that this AFD discussion has been moved to a different page. The broken period was presumably less than 24 hours. GRBerry 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I missing something? The article, while it very much needs a ton of work, has the essentials for a CVG article. Lots of stuff should be moved around , citations are needed, as well as the "game under dev" tag, but it seems that it's a very valid article in and of itself. I must be missing something, big time. Keep Scytheml 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This debate is admittedly somewhat confusing at this point, and for good reason. Since the beginning of the AFD, the article has been edited heavily - most of the earlier discussion was about a version of the article that would indeed never be acceptable on Wikipedia. Since then, it's really turned into a debate over notability, which is more subjective. Just hope that clarifies. JoshWook 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well filled out article. Havok (T/C/c) 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I utterly reject the original research claim for games. The only way one can become familiar with a game is to play it. You read books, watch movies and play games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_Legacy_(game)&oldid=1143880895"