Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebel Planet: Orion

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. with no prejudice against re-creation if the game is released and attracts enough independent comment to be notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Planet: Orion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a game that has been in development since 2007 and has still not been released - no evidence given for notability. A few mentions on the web but nothing that I think makes it notable. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete - There seem to be some Russian articles mentioning it briefly in 2006 but there's nothing to suggest it meets WP:N Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Game site still up and game developers are still working on the game as of November 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.182.6 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existence and development are not substitutes for notability. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have a track record of releasing computer games. Independent Developers are now much more notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.37.247 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This whole deletion recommendation is nonsense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.16.193 (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — 72.78.16.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How so? Could you please explain why? Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game is just delayed. It may not have a definitive date of release, but the game is still very much in the works. If you want to delete this, then you should do so with all the other pages on Wiki with the same level of notability. User:Lord_Hawk 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI agree - they probably should be deleted. Note our guidlines for films (which I think are a good comparison) say "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should be discussed on the relevant policy's talk page. I would advise against proposing this however, because it is in essence an all-or-nothing proposal that promotes instruction creep, so it is likely to be shot down fairly quickly. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability (WP:N) and no reliable, independent verification. This may change after the game's release and we can examine the topic again then. Marasmusine (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage, votes for keep have no rationale as to why. I support recreation later on if the game receives significant coverage, but I couldn't find anything useful on the game as of now. If the game had received any notable press I would support keeping it, but I found very little to support it. As far as deleting "other games like it" any user is welcome to nominate other games with similar notability. --Teancum (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sigfnificant coverage to establish notability for an unreleased video game. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the founder of Rebel Planet Creations, Peter Churness, I can assure everyone the game is still in active development, though progress admittedly has been slow. We had tabled the project a couple years ago in order to finish a separate game, Axys Adventures, which we successfully finished and brought to market and won an award for. Rebel Planet: Orion went back into development during the summer of 2009 and we are aiming for a Christmas 2010 release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchurness (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Pchurness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment - Being in active development is not a criterion for keeping the article at Wikipedia. At issue is notability which is a set of inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Then why are certain PS3 games that have been in development for six+ years (and which have yet to see much in terms of gameplay) allowed to stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.182.6 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list what these games are? Without knowing what games you are talking about a good assesment can't be made. It may be possible that the other articles should be deleted as well or that the other games have had more mainsream coverage as well as reporting from reliabe sources making the article notiable. In short, vague references about other aricles will not help save this one and does noting to counter the notability concerns.--76.71.213.19 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or in other words WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- Whpq (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/rpg/therebelplanet1orion/index.html Was originally supposed to be a Xbox game, but now looks to be a PC game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.182.6 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is more in-depth coverage please let us know, but this would fall under a press release, since no actual previews of the game exist in that reference - just fact sheets and media, which unfortunately doesn't cover notability. --Teancum (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing demonstrating notability within the article, sources available to salvage the article or guaranteed to appear when the game is released. Whether it's released or in development or whatever is irrelevant, the question is do reliable sources cover the game in depth? Currently, no. Since The Axys Adventures: Truth Seeker, Rebel Planet's previous game, is showing no signs of being notable by Wikipedia standards either, there's zero guarantee that will change. Despite which, best of luck with the project, Truth Seeker looks like a sweet game. Someone another 18:29, 19 November 2009 (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.