Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zulu Online


 * 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. Keep comments are all from new and/or single-purpose accounts. Xoloz 01:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Zulu Online
Non-notable gamecruft. (Contested prod.) According to the website, the game is not yet even released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Maybe warrants an article if the game is released and gets some notoriety, but not encyclopedic until then. eaolson 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Zulu Online has plenty of notoriety, being one of the first few zombie MMOFPS' in development. Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but it is not a muddy ball of mush either. Your protests are purely opinions. Qwo 22:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, apologies for deleting the tag. Qwo 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll also transpose my earlier protest on the article's discussion page here: as stated in the edit summary of my removal of the deletion tag, I believe the claim that Zulu Online is a "non-notable" game is of arguable merit. Also, the article was created mere moments ago, and has not yet had a chance to be fleshed out. Stop being a party pooper, dear sir. Qwo 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable. Flying Jazz 00:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I was curious because the article doesn't say anything about who is creating this game, so I googled the name and found this post in a forum at 3dgamers.com, dated June 12, 2006, under the heading, "Zulu-Online, MMO Zombie Game, is anyone interested?"
 * My name is Logan Strunk. I am a senior at Shawnee State University in Southern Ohio.
 * I go to school for Gaming Simulation Design and Engineering.
 * Basically, I'm in school to make video games.


 * Recently, me and a few friends have decided to start making a game for our own enjoyment, and to show off at a gaming expo we having coming up in the fall. ...


 * ...so, basically, this is an ad-hoc project run by a college senior. That doesn't by itself make the game non-notable, but, considering it isn't released yet, I think it raises the bar a bit. Brianyoumans 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. For one this site was not created by Logan, it was actually started by one of the fans. Also this is coming out in the near future (October). Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, what is it for, gaining knoledge. Therefore even if it was an ad campaign (which i ensure you it's not), it's giving the public knoledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.143.35 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 September 2006


 * Keep. If wikipedia is not a crystal ball then why can pages like this stay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Dead_%282007_film%29 i mean lets not be hipocritical here 67.184.143.35 16:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion
 * Since the two "Keeps" above use the same IP address, I suspect they are from the same person. Flying Jazz 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am Logan. www.Zulu-Online.com is the website for the game in development. As the person above me said, if we are releasing in October, why should a film not being released for an entire year be allowed to have an article, and this not? This is less of a game and more of a simulation that is being created, something that has never been done before. That is why we feel it deserves notoriety. This isn't something being put together by two programmers in their basement. Currently there are six people on the team developing Zulu-Online and all but two of us are students going to school specifically for Gaming and Simulation Design. The sound person went to a Technical school, and now runs a camera and sound boom for ESPN Sports Center, and one of our mappers designed maps for simulations for the military. Zulu-Online will be the first Simulation of a zombie outbreak, there has yet to be any other computer game like this yet. As you stated, no the release is not until October. However, there are plenty of screenshots and information about it located on our website. More than enough to supplement a small wiki article about the basis of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.66.19 (talk • contribs)  13:20, 3 September 2006
 * Please come back to Wikipeida AFTER the product has ACHIEVED notoriety instead of coming here to argue that it DESERVES notoriety. Flying Jazz 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I always wondered why the librarians at the college tell us not to use Wikipedia. Now I know why. -Logan


 * Delete Chase the Chicken this ain't. Nifboy 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * More like Flying POOP Qwo 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, everyone: No Personal Attacks. It's not just a good idea, it's official policy. eaolson 19:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. My apologies for earlier silliness. Flying Jazz 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I also apologize if Logan took my post badly; I posted the quote of his announcement solely as part of the discussion of the article's notability. If this is something that really will be out soon, and is generating a lot of buzz in the gaming community, then it might be worth an aricle.  I think it is more likely that we should hold off until the game actually comes out; if it becomes popular, then it will need an article.  Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Brianyoumans 23:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - NOT a Crystal ball, and fails WP:SOFTWARE --Mnem e son 21:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * i quote from WP:SOFTWARE "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden", "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service." (this page was not made by Logan) 67.184.143.35 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion (btw, i do have siblings so those "two post with the same ip address" did come from different users)
 * There are four criteria on WP:SOFTWARE, the meeting of any one of which makes it worth an article. In order: 1) Subject to multiple non-trivial works.  2) So well known that it's name has become generic.  3) Core product of a notable developer.  4) Distributed as standard with a major o/s.  We know immediately that it fails 2, 3, and 4, and a Google indicates that it fails 1 as well.  Therefore, it fails WP:SOFTWARE.  --Mnem e son 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, I am however rather offended by Flying Jazz's post. I thought you guys were supposed to be more professional? -Logan
 * As well you should be. I've removed the comments and I apologize again. Flying Jazz 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * i just did a search on google to see if that was true (i actually check the validity of other's statements) and when i search "zulu-online" it came up as the fourth link so it CAN be easily found on a google search and it's the 6th link on the search you did "zulu online" so i don't see how you can't find it 67.184.143.35 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion
 * Hi Alterion - I think you've misunderstood the guideline, sorry if I didn't make it clear. Allow me to quote, instead of paraphrase, in order to avoid ambiguity.  "The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."  The Ghit you cite does not meet these criteria - it is a post by Logan advertising on a BBS.  Can you provide any major published works where this software is referenced?  --Mnem e son 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok it may not have a published works where it is reference (that i know of) but i have to know, why would it be so bad for Zulu-Online to have a page on wikipedia. (and don't give me some crap like it isn't notable) 67.184.143.35 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion (also when you deside to say my name, at least COPY it CORRECTLY)
 * Because WP is not a Crystal ball - this game hasn't been released yet. Also, WP is not a Soapbox - the article is an advert.  --Mnem e son 12:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

the article is not an advertisement, it's simply information about the game. all this information is readily avaliable on the zulu-online website and it will be released (again sertain movies that are listed on wikipedia haven't come out yet but they are still here)216.125.163.56 13:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Altirion
 * There are so many people in the world who want something they've done or something they like or something a friend of theirs has done to get all the recognition it can get. Hosting all these pages at Wikipedia takes some money, and people donate that money to a non-profit foundation with the expectation that it will be used to provide web-space for some things but not other things. In order to talk about why movies get in before they're released and most software doesn't, I have to use the "notable" word so I won't talk about it! It would cost very very little to just sneak one more article into Wikipedia, but, like the grade-school teachers say, "If we make an exception for you then we have to make an exception for everyone else too." It's a really boring reason but it's the truth. Of course, for all I know, in a couple days when an administrator comes around to actually make the deletion, they might agree with you instead of us! Flying Jazz 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have to agree that it does not meet the software policy. The argument that there are other pages that don't meet policy is not a particularly strong one.  For every policy, I'm willing to be there is some article somewhere on Wikipedia that violates it.  We need to clean up the existing problems, not create more.


 * However, if it's any consolation, the game does look pretty cool. Kubigula 21:39, 11 September 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.