Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GemRB

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. merging requires the informattion to be verified and sourced. This is neither so by measuring consensus against policy delete is the only outcome Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GemRB

Article does not explain how this software is notable (WP:N), or provide any independent references (WP:V). Was up for PROD last December with notability concerns - removed anonymously but without addressing this issue. Marasmusine (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that this does not even assert notability. No 3rd party reliable sources (or any 3rd party sources), so this fails verifiability. Article has been tagged for a while, with no sign of improvement. I also note that there's nothing here that isn't or couldn't be on the software's own webpage, and that's unlikely to change unless the software starts getting mentioned in 3rd party sources. Mdwh (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Infinity Engine, which covers the engine GemRB is reimplementing as free software.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 13:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Infinity Engine, a sourceforge project of dubious status and no independent sources I can find. Nifboy (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you have not found any independent sources, then you have not even tried. There are news to every version on the usual suspects like LinuxGames or The Linux Game Tome. It has been included in LinuxLinks.com's article 42 of the Best Free Linux Games and has an article on the Linux Gamer Guide. It has been written about in the c't, "the computer magazine with the most subscribers in Europe" in issue 15/2008 and all this before it even reached playable beta status! There is a good reason why. No other game engine recreation can match in complexity and low age of supported games. That alone is noteworthy. Now look on the article of the similar project ScummVM, there is not a single independent source either but do you question its notability? GemRB is very close to beta, all it misses is the level-up feature, then the popularity and press coverage will rise. Do you really want to delete an article that is already available in five languages (notability again?) just to add it back later? -- Darklock (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's check these sources out in order. LinuxGames is merely reposting the change log, nothing there. Linux Game Tome, same deal. All LinuxLinks says about GemRB is literally "Clone of BioWare's Infinity Engine". Linux Gamer Guide is a Wiki, not an RS. So the first four sources you've given me really aren't sources, and that's not even considering their reliability; not useful for writing an article. Unfortunately I can't get at the German article, but I notice WeiDU and "Widescreen-Mod" amongst the keywords, so based on that I don't think this two-page article is anything more than a very brief overview of engine mods. That's hardly the "significant coverage" we need in order to write a decent article. Nifboy (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and to answer your questions, yes and yes. If I had a dime for every SourceForge project to come through AfD and declare "Oh, we'll have sources when we get into/out of beta!" I... Well, I wouldn't be rich, but I'd at least have enough change to do a load of laundry. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did try, though the burden is not upon us to prove verifiability, the burden is upon those adding material to Wikipedia. I agree though that [1] would count as a 3rd party reference, although it says nothing beyond it being a "Clone of BioWare's Infinity Engine". Note that it's not clear that news links count, as these seem to be just release announcements that can be submitted by anyone. It's also not a question of how good a product is (the only concern is how notable it is) and claims like "No other game engine recreation can match" would definitely need to be sourced, nor should we be predicting whether there might be more sources in future. The issue of other articles isn't relevant here either - if you think that another article doesn't have sufficient verifiability or notability, then feel free to raise that issue for that article. Also note that if the article is redirected/merged, then the content wouldn't be lost anyway, so that could trivially be undone if and when there is greater coverage in future. Mdwh (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[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.