Talk:Space Combat

VfD (2004)


VfD: Space Combat

 * 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.  

Non-notable computer game with no google backlinks to game's homepage and an alexa rank of 5,660,799. -- Chessphoon 17:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 19:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Advertising. Geogre 19:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - advert - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think its advertising at all. It's a well-written page. -- Crevaner 16:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I feel that while it may increase awareness of Space Combat, as it's freeware, the negative sides of any advertising claims are moot. Also, I feel it's better for people who don't have any idea what Space Combat is to get linked to a non-partisan (and peer-reviewable - If you think there's stuff in the article that's blatant advertising, get out there and tweak it) page here for a brief explanation (and then return to their regular viewing), rather than just being dumped off to a site made by the manufacturer which will be advertising. As for the minor game accusations, it isn't all that well known, but it is one of only a few that do model physics with any degree of realism, so it hence deserves a page of its own for similar reasons to X-Plane. AS2 20:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: The issue isn't the harm of advertising. When the deletion guidelines mention advertising, it's because they're trying to outline some of the things that make something inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  I'm sure that the game is good, but this is an online encyclopedia.  There are lapses.  No doubt you can find other games mentioned.  However, we reserve article space for notable things that, well, ought to be in an encyclopedia, so we are most emphatically not here to raise awareness.  We try not to raise awareness of political issues, gender/social issues, programming issues, or any other current concern.  Instead, entities that are notable (first, pioneering, popular to a degree that non-initiates know about them, affecting the outside world, influencing later development) are worthy of inclusion.  This is no comment on the worth of the game, just the encyclopedia-worthiness of this entry. Geogre 20:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, notable things. Such as, "Styles of lightsaber combat" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.40.217 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC). (I.E. after debate was closed) --Scott Wilson 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with Crevaner and AS2.
 * Keep dangit! I just downloaded this last week! ;-) Kim Bruning 11:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Farside 11:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems to have significant worth in that it is unique even if not well known.  It's also well written and doesn't seem to advertise (in that they stand to make no profit and doesn't use sensationalistic language "a revolutionary new game..." and actually points out many flaws).  Notwithstanding questions of it's encyclopediac content, I think we ought to keep it until those issues are more fully reviewed.  If we decide at a later date that all articles of this class aren't for wikipedia then we can purge them in one Great Purge of Articles, but for now, let's keep this interesting article! -SocratesJedi 22:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation?
Is the disambiguation really neccesary? I wouldn't have thought many folk would mix Space Combat up with other space simulations. A disambig with general discussion of combat in space, or a link/category to the space simulations page, yes; but not a disabig, surely. --Scott Wilson 20:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)