Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Colony (game)

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. Reliable sources are a necessity. Proto::► 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Colony (game)

Lost Colony (game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An online game. Nothingon Google News, nothing on Factiva, "Version 0.71 is due to be out on Friday, January 4." No sources outside the game's own website (WP:OR?). Guy (Help!) 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The game is classified as "in development". The Game's website is a primary source, why should it be up for deletion? 24.136.249.147 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The game is listed on Gameshout.com http://www.gameshout.com/news/pc_games_gameshout_announces_lost_colony_video_game/article8617.htm however, as Red Planet LLC seems to belong to gameshout...... I would argue that the controvesy surrounding the game is enough to merit a Wiki entry not to mention the staffs tactics in dealing with anyone who criticises it. Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 0534GMT 6/1/07.
• Keep: OMaHTLD is correct in the site he provided, however I do disagree with his reasoning for wanting the article not deleted. The article HAS had the problem of edit wars by people who seem to have a vindetta against the game on multiple sites, and the user StateofShock, who is a developer of the game. While Im not sure it is nessaraly approperiate for a developer to be editing out things in place of info that essentially plugs the game, on the same token it has also been a problem for the article being vandalised and constantly putting up things of speculative nature as fact. Though peoples opinions and speculation have been put in a community reaction section, which is where I think it is approperiate imho. But I digress, the game is still under development and the game's site is a primary source. The link OMaHTLD provided, albiet a sister company, is a seperate source that the game exists, again Under Development. Simply because the company has not had a great amount of advertising or is not prevelent in the news, it should have merit for an entry in wikipedia because of thoes sources, or at least as much right as other games being developed that have articles. Thanks. TheSittingDuck 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are quite correct in that some people have made some fairly vitriolic comments about the game/devs, and some unsubstantiated comments, mainly relating to the licensing of the Torque Engine, something of which they would have no way of knowing either way.

There is also speculation over the actual existence of the full game the devs have claimed is completed after a years development, of which they are unwilling to release any screenshots etc before asking for cash. This has led to speculation that they intend to begin production on the money gained by pre orders and delay the game due to ‘bugs’ as the only in game screenshots are from their testbed version of the game which has drawn criticism as being a simply modified version of the Torque demo included with the engine.

Just as the Wikipedia entry should contain information about the gameplay, in which Stateofshock has not been shy in adding, it should also contain information on the controversy surrounding the games inception, in which Stateofshock has not been shy in removing. Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 1210GMT 7/1/07.

• Comment: Should we delete every article for every game that isn't out yet? Following Lost Colony there are many people who want to see it fail, including a rival company. A base for deletion needs more then the fact that the game isn't out yet and that people don't like it (or want it to succeed). The only merit in deletion that there is, is that this is a hot topic. But on the same coin, why let an article die because its controversial? Zanduar 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What rival company would that be? Signed - OMaHTLD Mark Berry. 1244GMT 8/1/07.

• Comment: I am here as OMaHTLD's advocate and will not be making a keep or delete recommendation of my own, although I may present some arguments in OMaHTLD's favor. I've tried to reformat everyone's comments to make clear who thinks the article should be kept, and to make clear who has been saying what. If I've gotten anything wrong, please feel free to let me know. Thanks, TheronJ 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: As a representative for the game itself, Lost Colony, I am all for deletion of this Wiki article. There's no way we can fairly provide information about the game while both Vashner and OMaHTLD are running this speculative crusade. All they have done at Wikipedia, according to their logs, is to pick on this game and to stir up more controversy. Yes, there was a thread posted on GarageGames which was CLOSED because of the speculative nature. Lost Colony is VERY much involved with the community, you can see that from our website. We also have involved community members in the game using some of the faction logos they created. We have done a lot of development for this game, using Torque's Shader Engine early adopter, which the "early adopter" doesn't even provide a running game engine. Thus, we had to make several development changes to make it work for Lost Colony. By default, TSE (TGEA) early adopter is not a runable game engine.We have argued these truths, but both Vashner and OMaHTLD keep coming back with "you're running the Torque Demo". This comes from the same 2 people who originally thought we were using "Torque", which we are not. We are using a different engine made by Torque known as "Shader Engine", or TGEA. All of this fuss is a waste of time, and the only reason Vashner and OMaHTLD want this article to remain, is so they can further confuse the public about our video game. Enough already. I say get it off Wiki if this is the way it's going to be. We've had enough of this nonsense. Stateofshock 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This game hasn't been released, and there are no reliable external sources. -- Alan McBeth 02:27, 10 January 2007 (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.