Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 3D Gamemaker

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. Daniel .Bryant 10:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3D Gamemaker[edit]

It is a stub and has not been edited and has no more than 30 words, there is no point in keeping this Stub! It has not been improved. You have untill novemeber 1st to improve CoolChris 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any great need to delete this; there's plenty of opportunity to develop it into a decent article. I've tidied it up a little, and added some basic info and categories, and I'm sure someone with some actual knowledge about the app could make it much better. Cmdrjameson 20:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination does not concern the quality of the writing, but whether or not reliable sources can be found to verify the information in the article. "A person with some actual knowledge of the app" is not a reliable source and what xe writes into the article is considered original research ColourBurst 07:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn't the best article on Wikipedia but... keep. There's a Gamespot article (which is more than I can say for a lot of CVG articles that end up here), a Gamespy review and a review by IT Reviews. ColourBurst 07:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it's a "30-word stub", as you said, it does not neccesarily mean it should be deleted. So long as it provides some information, it should be considered a part of Wikipedia. If we deleted every stub that was 50 words or less, how much of wikipedia would we lose? Every day, stubs that were merely a sentence and infobox become larger. Some even reach Featured Article status. If we delete every short stub, we're cutting down on future information.

And that's the end of my short little speech. ~~ Scalene ^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•} 09:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the article currently provides no reliable information (that is, information that is verified with reliable sources.) You need third-party published information in the article to keep it. And it's up to the people who vote keep to provide such sources. ColourBurst 16:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the sources in. ColourBurst 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sometimes, I think people get slightly over excited about the verified and reliable sources rules. Really, sometimes, you don't need to have a source. If I made an article that said 1+1=2, would I have to spend time finding a source for it? In the same way, simple facts that originate from someone who uses the program should not have to be referrenced.

Anyway, he's added the sources anyway, so, it's a Strong Keep. Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Game Creators since both articles are short? -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:28, 27 October 2006 (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.