Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbulenz

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. looks like we do now have a consensus and that the issue is that the sources are not quite there. This now falls to delete but I will specifically all recreation if the sourcing improves Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Turbulenz

Turbulenz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is about a video gaming platform that has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that this platform has yet to be released. As best as I can tell, it is in beta testing based own their won web site. The only coverage is this NY Times reprint of a tech blog which is really about the company raising some funds. Whpq (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And Wikipedia doesn't ever talk about products in beta testing? Anyway, this article from the San Francisco Cronicle is not a reprint of the NT Times: [1], it is about their presence at GDC 2011, this one is about the launch of a program to fund third parties: [2], this one about Strawdog Studios mentioning singing a contract to develop a game for the Turbulenz platform: [3] and Strawdog Studios is a recognized entity in Wikipedia: [4]. Latestversion (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have found a reference to the presentation Turbulenz gave on the NVidia Booth at GCD 2011: The Future of Browser Gaming with the Turbulenz Engine, this is the direct link to the recording of that presentation: [5], I guess NVidia is a reliable source?. Btw, you can see part of their product offering running on their YouTube channel: [6]. 86.17.249.8 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how to identify press releases, and why these must not form the basis for Wikipedia articles? Marasmusine (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Giving a presentation at GDC on NVidia's Game Technology Theater is a press release? You obviously think NVidia allows anyone to pop into their booth to present stuff, right? Well, they don't, it is usually a personal invitation based on their knowledge of your technology and they are very careful to associate their name with other people. And the presentation they gave pretty much contains most of the information already on the wiki page. Latestversion (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still a primary source, my question to you still stands. Marasmusine (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia and that is my point, the presentation at GDC 2011 was vetted by NVidia, not a press release sent to a newspaper, I assume that you understand the differences between the two and that was my refutation, not whether it was primary or not. Also I think that presenting the technology as part of the NVidia presence at GDC is a reliably published way, have you actually watched the presentation? the demoed the technology live. Latestversion (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We can use reliably published primary sources if there is sufficient secondary sourcing. We cannot base an article on primary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - I was only able to locate press releases and other primary sources. We cannot base an article on these (WP:V). Marasmusine (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - The company exists, they gave a presentation at GDC 2011, two creditable sources, NVidia and Strawdog Studios, are aware of them or working with them directly and nothing on their wiki page contradicts what they show on their demos or what they presented. Latestversion (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)— Latestversion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete, for now. Aside from the NYT reprint I found these three articles [7] [8] [9] and two more from gamesindustry.biz [10] [11] (which I cannot assess in terms or reliability). Even with these, I feel it lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG as it all revolves around the fundraising and the partnership with Strawdog, and the articles fail to review the subject in a substantive manner. It seems likely that they may become notable in the future, but not just yet - frankie (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why you guys keep ignoring the collaboration with NVidia [12] also reported here [13], doing a live demo and presentation at GDC 2011 is not reliable enough to prove what they are working on? OK, I agree that they are not incredible notable yet, so you want to delete the article and them a month later add it again because Develop magazine runs a full featured article on them? because everything on Wikipedia is only about hugely notable subjects, right? WP:UA I think there is place for this company on Wikipedia, there are smaller companies listed here than Turbulenz. Btw, if you want to known the team you can attend this event or just check github.Latestversion (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The collaboration with NVidia is not being ignored. It has been considered and for me, is not an independent source. Companies making deals to develop stuff with NVidia, (or any other company) doesn't establish notability when there is insufficient independent coverage as is the case here. As for being an unusual article, this is in no way quirky or unusual. In fact, developing a video gaming product is blandly normal and business as usual. -- Whpq (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My comment about NVidia is about the repeated comments about lack of reliability of the sources, not about notability, if you read my comment again you will see that I agree that the company is not a notable one at the moment. What I do not understand is why someone keeps saying that there are no reliable sources about the information on the article when they did a live presentation with a second party at GDC. Latestversion (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The comment about the unusual articles is just to point out that lack of notability is not always a reason to delete an article, obviously my English is not good enough to be sarcastic. Latestversion (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to deletion of an article notability is usually the main issue. Primary and secondary sources may be used to build content (although no article should be based on such sources alone), but in order to see if the article is kept then the subject must have received significant coverage by independent reliable sources (the actual concerned guidelines being WP:GNG and WP:CORP). Both Strawdog and Nvidia are affiliated with Turbulenz, and as such are not suitable to establish notability, even in the case that they would be suitable to reference the article - frankie (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Cloud gaming (OnLive, Gaikai) is an evolving area and they seem interesting. Surely this can be a stub article for now, and extended as the space evolves? There are other web engine developers who are already on Wikipedia with very little public information available (ShiVa (game engine)). As the Turbulenz page stands it's informative without being a marketing article. I'd keep this in it's current form. Mutande65537 (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)— Mutande65537 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - The existence of other articles is not a good reason for keeping this article. Each article at AFD needs to stand on its own merits. What coverage exists to establish notability? -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think we could agree that there are reliable primary sources, so the issue seems to be the lack of secondary ones? well, in that case I consider this Gamasutra article and this VentureBeat post both secondary and reliable, they are both analysis of the technology and personal interviews, clearly not press releases. Latestversion (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • If we do not agree of what is primary and what is secondary, I would propose that in the spirit of WP:FAILN: For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort, we could simply follow the recommendation: Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors, and wait a fixed period of time, for example 2 months, for new secondary sources to appear before finally (or temporary) deleting the article. Latestversion (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Notability is not unclear in this instance. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Notability is obviously unclear because there is enough coverage in reliable sources: NVidia, Strawdog, Gamasutra, VentureBeat. You have not refuted that there are both reliable primary and secondary sources. Latestversion (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The article is now attached to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutande65537 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not relevant to this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - I found this article which appears to be a second/third party source with comment and some analysis [14] Bigdawg15779 (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)— Bigdawg15779 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Sources cited are sufficient to demonstrate notability. As Cullen328 correctly points out, a source does not need to be solely devoted to a topic to establish a presumption of notability for the topic, merely to cover the topic in more than a trivial fashion. WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". "significant, interesting, or unusual" are subjective judgments; if I may be permitted to quote a very good essay on this topic, "notability is not fame and importance, [and] notability is not subjective". Deletion is called for when an article fails WP:N or passes it but fails WP:NOT; neither case has been demonstrated here. cab (call) 8:40 am, 20 June 2011, Monday (12 days ago) (UTC+4) I am not sure where this comment originated since it is unsigned; feel free to revert my strikethrough but please provide some background in the edit as well. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

From this dif it looks like it was added by Spartaz when he undid his close. I've asked him about it on his talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Originally closed this as no consensus but have relisted per request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The only coverage about this company in independent reliable sources to just note that they raised $5 million in financing. Based on WP:CORPDEPTH, that is not sufficient coverage to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Inadequate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Weak delete. As the nominator notes, the only reliable coverage of the company, apart from regurgitated press releases, is a brief NYT blog entry, which is not quite enough in terms of WP:GNG.  Sandstein  06:05, 9 July 2011 (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.