Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacksky


 * 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Blacksky
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This game is still a year away from release. Article is also the only article the original author has contributed to. —C.Fred (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Delete Vapourware. Encise 05:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as vanity. We do cover predicted events if there is notable attention paid to it (e.g. E3 release). However, this game is pre-alpha and has no third-party cites. Unverifiable info. --Mmx1 04:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point! Look at the talk page, and the author admits it is vanity! Speedy delete if we can get it, otherwise my recommendation stays at delete, adding vanity and original research as reasons. —C.Fred (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder where in all of this defamation(sp?) of the author, the wikipedia civility is being taken onto place. --Ori Klein 11:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 04:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. --Khoikhoi 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Game is not vaporware. Game can be downloaded and played on a PC as well as sample music files from the game. The downloadable portions of the game are playable and contain a scenario to play. In essence, it can be considered a demo, or a short game in itself. The playability of the game is however not complete of what the author wants, as the game will continue to grow and become bigger, and will be released upon the web accordingly. There is no crystal ball, no predicted event, game is playable and has already happened and has been online for 10 months. With each version release, new content and new gameplay will be added and changed. Viperg 20:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I probably should shut my mouth, but I'm too much a passionate, truthful and tactless person to do so.
 * 1. I am the other developer. 2. I would login but wiki refuses to deliver my new password.
 * Onto the matter at hand: I find it highly amusing how wikians and their admins love to talk about vanity while they're measuring everything upto their humangoose ego and penis sizes. I always thought it is entertaining how ERROGANT wikipedia is to discuss the likes of Jack Thompson when they're so not too different in their behavior themselves.
 * This game is a project, a highly ambitious one to admit (and since when reaching far is wrong? Would you like to go bash Will Wright now?) which strives to satisfy the lacking needs required of today's games for ourselves and whomever may share our gaming desires. If you think what David wrote constitute as crystal balling, then I have no problem editing it out to stick to the facts. It will take years to develop, it will contain what I have in mind for it to contain and as was detailed and more.
 * But I think the problem really is, as said, phallic in nature. Simply put, BlackSky doesn't have the huge hype of celebritation which wikipedia require, though unlisted and I doubt you'll acknowledge its existance, it's a MAJOR consideration for you. So, just like you removed Pet Professional for it, I expect this to go down. Of course, if Pet Professional become a successful webcomic enoguh for you to notice, you'll come running to create an article for it. Sad hypocracy, is all I can say. Then again, the wiki rules never mentioned wikians need to be holding any virtue, merely trollish behavior to jump on every new post and nitpick it for violations, like any common forum trolls who got nothing better than 24/7 crawling around looking for someone to post something they can beat up like little nerds.
 * Anyhow, I never liked wikipedia, it is a failure and a good lesson in socio-dynamics, its "citizens" are more like an elitist geek society than a community of researchers and historians. So do whatever, not like I expect you to keep this. Don't know what David expected by posting this, I guess he doesn't know wikipedia too well. I'm off to work. Shrug. --Ori Klein originally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.39.117 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete, vaporware. Catamorphism 03:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep WTF is vaporware? This thing had a few notable google searches so stfu --DragonWR12LB 07:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to read Vaporware (as well as WP:CIVIL). Catamorphism 07:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh, certainly, let us adress the biased wiki as a source of knowledge, there be a laughter. Vaporware:
 * /vay'pr-weir/ (UK "vapourware") Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not actually take place). The term came from Atari users and was later applied by Infoworld to Microsoft's continuous lying about Microsoft Windows.
 * Seeing as how there was a release taking place, quite a few at that although the content of these releases may well be argued of, prior to announcements of any nature I don't see how this applies. Quite frankly, I don't see what is the big problem.
 * History is written by the winners, and wikipedia is no different. The eggorant presumptionous of its admins/users to believe or psuedo-aspire to have anything writtin inside being nothing but an objective account of facts is completely bogus as well as ridiculous. Wikipedia is entirely made out of "common's concensus", simply put, the most favored/popular oppinion is that which takes place at the center of the stage with fragments of what-may-be factual information taking sidekick placements to decorate the former.
 * The best example I have for such and the earlier claim I made regarding popularity/celebrity/hype/phenomena being the most considered factor for placement on wikipedia is how something as silly and rather sideline as Leeroy_Jenkins having an entire article dedicated to him. The simple first statement in the discussion area sums it all.
 * "This article has had a long journey to its current version. It has been the subject of mutliple deletion reviews and finally was unanimously voted for undeletion"; Indeed, wikipedia is motivated by nothing short of masses admiration. It is not, never was nor ever will be the online-dictionary-recordsholder it claims to be or claims to strive to be.
 * And before you jump on the "he's envy" cry-wagon, allow me to say this much: I could care less about BlackSky being listed on wiki in this context, I certainly see no good coming out of it. Personaly, I've been objecting to any sort of advertisment as I believe and forsee public reaction being nothing short of the leeching troll's "this isn't finished, this got bugs, where's my game" yawn-der and as you wikipedias reacted thus far (GG for the courtesy to say David is one full of vanity, he's nothing BUT, let me tell you, or this "article" at that, if anything it's a sincere obligation/mission statement. I would rather walk out with the project, or at least the game engine being half-done and then letting people I know of it and asking for feedback. But as said, this is not about BlackSky, this is about my grasp of wikipedia and how I see its denizen's.
 * This is what I'm angry about, what I "care" about. "You people" act immoraly and errogantly while forcibly applying rules of virtues and make self-proclamations regarding things you hold dear...if anything, YOU are the vaporware which has failed to deliver since then, now and ever. Hypocracy at its worst, and it is nothing short of utterly disgusting me.
 * One good thing did came out of this though, it grants me the notion of looking upon pushing further morality as part of the game's core design. Richard did good with ultima 4, sadly he forsoke soon the ideals of teaching good vs evil in his games since. He said once that games, especialy mmorpgs, should be made to educate people proper social behaviour, I believe that in a sense he is quite right. We'll see... --Ori Klein originally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.39.117 (talk • contribs)
 * I'll continue to attack this on the merits of pedia's definition of vapourware, for the sake of argument since I'm such a righteous-aspiring person. Since I believe I've covered the "release" issue, skipping a bit forward..."The term implies deception, or at least unwarranted optimism; that is, it implies that the announcer knows that product development is in too early a stage to support responsible statements about its completion date, feature set, or even feasibility."
 * Deception this is not, never was, nor intended to be and I apologize if it has been grasped as anything of the sort.
 * Unwarranted optimsm, perhaps, unorginized amatuer indie developing always is and I'll be the first to admit and say that I've been part of many such and watched 90% falls through. Being a pessimistic in nature myself, this isn't easy for me to defend against, but...sigh, here's hoping. David, fail me and I'll crush your scronie(sp?) neck. ;)
 * Too soon? I'll acknowledge, as the article statements succinctly (and I could expand without a problem) that we're in "too early a stage" to make responsible statements probably other than "this is what we're setting out for - and this is where we are currently".
 * Feature set, by most is definitely something I could make a responsible statement about, of course it isn't set in stone and is subject to change, yes yes yes, but for the most part this is what I'm looking to achive (hell, the "article" is so...generic&minimized, it doesn't begin to describe what -I- will refer to as feature set), if anything I'm looking to expand and append features rather than to decrease (from the get go I'm looking at this as designing a strong highly capable engine rather than just "a game", so if anything even featuers which won't be used in the game will be available to the engine, why the fuck this is important? because "the game" will be 100% modifyable, er-go, you can use anything in the engine to change the game, IE, we're making it ships, you could make it tank wars or I dunno...does aerial monopoly sounds too far fetch? meh (lemme think about it for a few bits...well it own't be transport tycoon (aw, sweet game, thanks sawyer!) but I can definitely see key engine feature elements being redirected and geared towards such).
 * Completion date? Always moving, can't, didn't & won't make a "responsible" statement about. Personaly, deadlines always flactuate, I forsaw mid 2006-2007 as a good deadline with the initial progress rate for finishing the engine, however, with the current delay and to factor in a beta (as in having actualy begun to create the actual game's content) I predict it to slide well within deep 2007, perhaps even 2008? We'll see...
 * Feasibility? As said, independent developments tend to turn vapor/canceled/dissipate/however you may wish to call it. If we (David, or if need be ever sadly (here's hoping not) his predecessor(sp?)) stick to it I'll say that its 100% most definitely feasible, the scope is large so it simply takes time - being independant and all, but feasible? The current programing technology and what limited resources such an almost non-budget development is by far, wide and large more than the required to lunch such a thing. Of course, go pitch it to a publisher (they're all looking for quick&easy money cows that has AWEEEESOME 3D gfx and utilize the latest 3dfx card or something to the like) - it won't fly, which is why indie devs games are known for their type/genre which the pubs are scared to do and why this one is being made for free and is&will be provided for free. Meh. ^_^
 * Someone should sue Interplay for misusing the "by gamers for gamers" motto.
 * Wow, I rambled lot, but at least I'm sincere, can you say the same? What you read is what you get. Off to do some actual productive actions. --Ori Klein originally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.39.117 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment: I'm not at all sure why you're apparently so interested in having an article about this game remain on Wikipedia when you also seem to be so convinced that Wikipedia is laughable and irredeemably biased. Can you explain? Catamorphism 09:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As said, I'm not. What I am is arguing against what I perceive to be an irrational and biased act of self-induldgment. It's in my nature (or alter-ego of sorts) to fight that which I grasp as stupid and/or derived of "dark side" (hate, tyranny, censorship, greed, corruption, etc. negative/malevolent human traits), typical corporate/government/dicratorship behavior, in an essence. I'm logicaly-righteous beyond repair, it's a character flaw... ;) --Ori Klein


 * Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 10:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not as per yet-unproved reasonable logic for deletion. (not using the preview feature is yet another character flaw) --Ori Klein


 * Comment: The difference between Leeroy Jenkins and this article can be found about two sections into the article on Jenkins: "Leeroy was given a substantial boost in notoriety by the publication of an article in the August 2005 issue of PC Gamer UK by author Craig Pearson, entitled 'The Ballad of Leeroy Jenkins'." Jenkins was the subject of major media attention; he was something worth writing about before he got a Wikipedia article. Has anybody other than the developers written anything about Blacksky (other than in the AfD discussion)? —C.Fred (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: AKA, Hype. As said, popularity, nothing more, nothing else. Importance, weight of the matter - so to speak, ramifications of the event in question, etc. they are all negligible. Only one thing matters on wikipedia, the one thing "online geeks" can ever agree on (couldn't notice Everquest lacks an entry, I doubt its because none attempted to create one, but rather due to the, so-called, "contributors" being unable to agree on one single fact to be a fact and not a personal oppinion), the common's concensus of the masses. I found the leeroy movie funny, but nothing beyond that. To go onto the lengths that "article" assumes and try to go...sad. It was a short fad, nothing more. No more than the "juggernaut bitch" and that starwars3-trailer-parody and so on and so forth. Amusing, good for a laugh, but not something one is to give substance and weight for. Yet, there it is. Why? One reason: "everyone loves to ""hate"" leeroy", so to speak. And of course, the large masses love WoW as well. Ori Klein 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Re-add if it becomes notable after its release. —This unsigned comment was added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep What exactly do you mean by "notable?" Notable amoungst. . .? Since the game provides real demos (I know, I've actually played them, have you?) it is obvious that this isn't just some sort of elaborate gimmick or whatever. It is an independent, and currently freeware, game that seems far more developed than most all that I have seen in sourceforge.net or other games with non-profit development strategies. How many more releases are needed before this game becomes worthy of a wikipedia page? Or does it only become real when a commercial media organization takes a break from covering one of hundreds of US criminal cases (often no longer even relating in some way to a hollywood or sports celebrity,) and provides coverage of the project? --DS —This unsigned comment was added by 69.179.59.136 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC).


 * Strong Keep Sorry this is a waste of time here, just let the article go up and end this useless debate. Clearly he has something that is real and which can be played. Otherwise what is the point of having a future tag to let people know a game is under development? Oh, only the "mainstream" games currently under development can be mentioned, bunhca crap imo 12.36.117.2 18:46, 23 March 2006 (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.