Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero Point Software


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero Point Software
This is a crystal ball piece about a game developer who is waiting for a contract and funding to produce a game...as the title suggests, there is zero point to having this on WP. -- Ruby  04:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Spam - non notable until they actually do something -- Tawker 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.Bobby1011 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I said on the talk page, which you should have bothered to read before nominating it for deletion, it is NOT crystal ball, since it's verified &mdash; go read the policy again:
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.
 * The facts presented in the article are verified, so they cannot be speculation or prophecy. By your reasoning, an article about a drug company that has not actually started producing any drugs yet should be deleted on sight.
 * The only other argument you have is non-notability, which isn't policy. ··gracefool |&#9786; 04:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment a poorly written article in a french language forum is not a credible source. How about a press release or something for us to go on? Bobby1011 05:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, I've added the press release from their site, and another reference (found by Google). ··gracefool |&#9786; 05:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The press release says that the project is in the negotiation phase. Come on, this deal could fall through at any moment. The article is premature. I stand by deletion as the best option at this very early stage. Bobby1011 05:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no deal, and the article doesn't claim there is. The article is not premature, it makes no predictions. The article is talking about a game which is in development, but without a publisher. Should we get rid of all articles about software in development without publishers? That would include most open-source software in development. ··gracefool |&#9786; 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we get rid of all articles about software in development without publishers? If it's supposed to be commericial software, yes, the same way we'd get rid of articles on unpublished books. --Calton | Talk 06:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why only commercial software? ··gracefool |&#9786; 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete vaporware. --Calton | Talk 06:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete How can software that has yet to exist be considered notable? Until it has an effect on the game software-programming community it can only really be vapourware and WP is not a crystal ball.  (aeropagitica)   07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The very first sentence of the press release: “Project IM” (codename) teaser is a brief, pre-rendered showcase presenting our game concept, currently in pre-development/negotiation phase.  It's not even in development (as Gracefool asserts), it's in PRE-development, by the company's own admission, until they find a publisher/financial backing, and the article even says that as well.  Vaporware seems just about right to me as well, as does crystal ballery. -- Kinu  t /c  07:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, causality error in notability -- you can't cash in your future notability today. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn software, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Ter e nce Ong 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How does an entirely factual article hurt Wikipedia? Again, this does not come under crystal ball or anything else on that page, according to what the policy actually says. ··gracefool |&#9786; 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for non-notability. An article stating that I had a sesame bagel with cream cheese on it for breakfast this morning would be completely factual, also – and also not appropriate for Wikipedia. Come back when you've got a published game. (Or at least really famous vaporware). --Dcfleck 00:26, 26 February 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.