Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation Engine

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 merge to The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim#Development. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Engine

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

A game engine. The author removed my prod with the comment "it's been, what, about an hour? Give it some time, yeesh". It has now had more than 24 hours and no evidence of notability has appeared. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course, finding evidence of notability or lack thereof is part of the nomination process too. The nomination doesn't assert that its not notable, just that "no evidence of notability has appeared" in the article in 24 hours of existence. That's not a valid nomination the way I understand things. When I googled "creation engine" and "bethesda" I saw lots of links that appear to discuss it, but I am not a software or gaming guru and can't really judge how good those sources are but I know that non-mainstream sources often seem to sustain articles of this type. Assuming the nomination here is clarified and it was to be found that a separate article is not needed, this article could just be redirected/merged to Bethesda Softworks.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bethesda Softworks. I don't see much in the way of substantial coverage and don't see why this can't be addressed in a paragraph or two in Bethesda Softworks about their engine. In the event that it becomes sufficiently popular and the section becomes unwieldy, it can split back into its own article, but in the meantime, this doesn't satisfy WP:N.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Speedy Keep~~ - the four reliable sources provided each given plenty of significant coverage. It appears another user added three of the four sources after the nomination, so I don't think this was in bad faith. --Teancum (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - changed per comments by CR4ZE below. --Teancum (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim#Development. Considering the size of the article, and the fact that the Creation Engine is only being used for one game which hasn't been released yet, there's no notability. When the Development section of Skyrim grows large enough, then there can be discussion for a split. CR4ZE (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Creation Engine has essentially been announced less than a month ago as a brand new engine soon to become VERY notable, right now not much is known about this engine, simply because it is under heavy (secret) development and should be fully unveiled when The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is released. I also don't think it is right to merge this with The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim#Development article unless you are planning on separating it again after numerous "notable" games such as the next Fallout game are released by Bethesda Softworks using this engine.ExilorX (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - isn't it a little WP:CRYSTAL-ish to just assume they hang on to this engine for multiple games? Sure, its likely, but the fact is that there is no way to prove that right now. I don't have any issue whatsoever with splitting it out later should it become as notable as Gamebryo, but that won't happen until at least 2-3 games are released using it. Besides, all of this info needs inclusion in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim#Development anyway, since it's the first game using the engine. The history will always be in Creation Engine, so it can easily be split back off when the time comes, but for now it can't stand on its own. --Teancum (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a source in the article that includes one of the developers clearly stating that the engine will be used in future games produced by Bethesda Studios. --Dorsal Axe 18:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per Teancum. While it will probably become notable there need to be more sources before a stand-alone article is justified. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2011 (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.