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 keep. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Space Station Tycoon[edit]

Space Station Tycoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable canceled video game. Some sourcing does exist, but it covers two specific events: The game was announced with a few hands on articles, and then subsequently cancelled the next year. There's nothing indicating any lasting importance or significance. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting that below in the discussion, the suggestion to merge to Outpost Kaloki X was put forward. I agree with that option. -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Per WP:NEXIST. Hands-on articles still count as WP:SIGCOV if they are significant enough to demonstrate the game. GamesRadar+ GameSpot AND IGN all covered it in detail. There is a dev interview also by IGN here and an IGN article about the official character descriptions. The articles about its cancellation demonstrate continuing significance, otherwise it would have been ignored. At worst it should be merged into Outpost Kaloki X of which it is a spiritual sequel, but that would not fall under a deletion discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm: What articles cover its cancellation? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  [1] [2] [3] Ironically, there is another game with the same name on Steam, but it does not seem to be notable yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The hands-on articles appear to be part of E3 coverage, which is routine trade show stuff. I still do not believe this game holds any significance. NEXIST I don't think is a strong keep vote, because I acknowledged the sourcing from the start. It's about whether those sources indicate actual lasting importance, why the world should record that this game appeared at E3 then quietly never happened. Did it impact the industry? Is it brought up as an example of cancelled games that should have made it? Does anyone at all talk about it following the quiet rumor of demise? -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think it had importance, as the game that came before it, Outpost Kaloki X, was a fairly popular one. It is clear that fans were disappointed that the game was cancelled. However, in terms of industry impact, I'd wager it was pretty much nil. Then again, I'm not quite sure whether almost anything at Category:Cancelled video games truly had an "impact" besides such rare games as Metroid Dread that got restarted far later. Did something like Maverick Hunter really impact the Mega Man series? Not really, Capcom decided that Mega Man should not go that direction and it was scrapped forever. So if we're using that metric, vast swathes of video game articles would have to be deleted. Still, GNG is GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As I so often like to point out, GNG sets guidelines towards presumed notability, allowing that discussions can decide the topic is in fact not notable or significant. More AFDs should be treated from this view rather than "Well there's three sources, must pass." Do you really believe this topic is significant and the coverage indicates such importance? That's fine. I don't. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak keep I'm not quite convinced that the sources provided by Zxcvbnm amount to lasting coverage, per WP:LASTING and WP:ROUTINE, but don't know what the standards would be for news coverage of upcoming video games. Are there any sources confirming that it was cancelled? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As far as I know, there is no confirmation it was cancelled - it was just a soft cancellation into development hell and the closest it gets is an IGN article saying there are "insiders" saying that it was most likely close to being cancelled. Still, considering it's a Wii game, its cancellation is all but certain. Nintendo will not be officially approving Wii releases, in 2022. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'd also like to say that hands on coverage is definitely more than WP:ROUTINE coverage, which tends to be "hey this game exists, here's a regurgitated press release". It's essentially as close to a review as you get without being an actual review, which is impossible for a cancelled game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - While video games that were cancelled in development can be notable this does not appear to be one of those games. While there was some previews based on a demo that was available to play at the 2007 E3, outside of one IGN piece based on a rumour that the game was cancelled, there appears to be no other significant or lasting coverage. Complicating this search however is an unrelated game of the same name, developed by Lunheim Studios and currently on early access on Steam. I'll happily reassess my comment should other sources be discovered, but for now I think deleting is the correct choice here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Sideswipe9th: And you do not think that at the very least mentioning it in Outpost Kaloki X and redirecting there is worth doing? It is described in several articles as a spiritual successor to it, and the game's very own devs admitted as such. It would make no sense to delete as a valid search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Sideswipe9th, @Zxcvbnm, I don't think a merge/redirect to Outpost Kaloki X would be amiss. I would support mentioning it there, a paragraph would be easy and cover all relevant points. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm: no I do not. First of all I cannot quickly find sources that support the assertion that it's a "spiritual successor" to Kaloki. Of the sources provided here, aside from the interview only two mention Kaloki; GamesRadar and Gamespot, and both do so in less than favourable terms. In fact, I cannot find any sources that mention a spiritual successor to Kaloki. Having tried to find any other sources on this game, I'm tending towards it failing WP:NTEMP, as the only coverage was at a single E3 in 2007, and a single IGN piece from later that year speculating on its cancellation. As I said in my last reply, if other sources can be provided, then I will happily reassess my comment however no such sourcing has been provided as of yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge to Outpost Kaloki X. I do agree with ferret that the coverage falls under routine coverage, and the game has limited long-term significance. This article described the game as the successor to Outpost Kaloki X, and a section over there would be sufficient. OceanHok (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. The sources provided by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ demonstrate significant coverage. The game had (at least) three hands-on articles, as well as several news stories about its (then-rumored) cancellation. The article itself could be improved based on the sources mentioned in this page, but it passes WP:GNG. Merko (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The coverage pertains to exactly two events: Routine E3 coverage, the only time the game appears to have been seen, and rumors of cancellation, which is also generally routine. This doesn't demonstrate any lasting significance, and it's been long enough that any impact this game did have, it should have been commented on. There's nothing to say about the game in the end that requires more than 2-3 paragraphs, making it a perma-stub that is more than suitable for merge (As a proposed WP:ATD). -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm not sure how a game's cancellation can possibly be routine - for a game to be cancelled, especially one that appears close to completion, has to be at least somewhat rare. I admit there is a valid target to merge to, but when there's more than enough information to write up a full article on the game in question since it got so far in development, a merge seems unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Whether or not the article is merged, it needed some citations so I went ahead and sourced most of the claims in the article (It's far from perfect, but it's better then nothing, and it will help the next editor who comes along from needing to sleuth as much). It's not quite as cut and dry as exactly two points in time.

  Here's a rough timeline of coverage:

  • February 2007 - Announcement, big flurry of press.
  • March 2007 - Stragglers of press doing the same stuff as in February.
  • April-May 2007 - Nothing? (Brief mention in The Province on May 27, 2007, Page C3)
  • July 2007 - Journalists get to play the game at a Namco press event. Additional materials released. Developer interview published later in the month.
  • August 2007 - The original release date and the discussion of cancellation
  • September-November 2007 - Nothing?
  • December 2007 through February 2008 - Brief mentions in various periodicals as a progressively delayed upcoming release.

  Though I do understand where ferret is coming from, I'd say there are really 3 or 4 big events here, with a slight trickle in between and following them. Not sure how big of a difference that makes. Mbrickn (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I believe the coverage establishes notability here. However when sourcing this, some unreferenced parts of the article feel similar to [4]. --Mbrickn (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.