Talk:Mark Overmars

from Vfd
On 12 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was redirect to Marc Overmars. See Votes for deletion/Mark Overmars for a record of the discussion. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Game Maker Community attack
Should the Game Maker Community attack be mentioned in this article? It regards the forum of the Game Maker community more than Overmars himself. Goofyman 21:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Full Name
Not sure if it would be of any use for this, but according to The Mathematics Genealogy Project, Mark's full name is Markus Hendrik Overmars, Mark Overmars is the nickname that he goes by more frequently. -IsmAvatar

Valid Information
The wiki article on Mark overmars is an important reference, Game Maker is a widely used bit of software and is even used by designers in the professional games industry to mock up ideas before programming them in their own engine. This tool has helped the game industry move forward and any information on the programs creator is to be considered highly valuable.

16:54, 19 Jan 2007

GameMaker merge with YoYo Games
This page should be modified to reflect that Mark Overmars joined up with YoYo Games in the development of GameMaker. The GameMaker website (referenced at the bottom) now redirects to www.yoyogames.com, so you may want to update that link. -IsmAvatar


 * This move is described in some detail in the Game Maker article. I don't see that it needs more text in Overmars' article as well, since that links to Game Maker. But I have changed the link itself as you suggest, especially since the redirect from the old site doesn't quite go to the right place. —David Eppstein 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

footnote
Just for the record, GM has helped many amature game designers such as myself to reach their full potential at a very young age. I have been using it since I was 15, and this program has helped me to learn the basics. Mark Overmars has my respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratstail91 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been using it since i was nine. I'm now at the level of a little over "Decently-A-Pro" 64.136.27.231 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but this is not a forum. IsmAvatar (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a personal website, Wikipedia has standards which editors are required to follow and the article lacks valid citation and fails WP:Notability. And it is really not fair that you request Wikipedia to host content on servers that do not belong to you. BlitzGreg (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Article Deletion
The article contains only 1 citation that was able to be verified, also failing to establish WP:Notability and is criteria for speedy deletion per Criteria_for_speedy_deletion BlitzGreg (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have undone your changes. I can't find any good faith reason for your removal of paper publications as being "dead links", and Overmars overwhelmingly passes WP:PROF as shown by his citation record in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I have to disagree as per the exact criteria you linked. "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.", Google book inventory alone is not sufficient coverage of notability nor does it meet a "wide array" as per the criteria. Also, you may check for yourself both of the citations are restricted and inaccessible, the book publication I did not realize was ok, however the other two are completely unreliable sources. BlitzGreg (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also their is a link rot since May of 2010 on the last citation as well, the one I assume you are saying is a book citation, because I did not remove any of the books cited directly above the normal references. BlitzGreg (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re WP:PROF: As you say, the number of publications is not relevant. What is relevant is the number of citations. Three publications with over 100 citations each would be a good record, most likely enough to pass that criterion. In Overmars' case there are three publications with over 2000 each. That is to say, each of these three publications has over 2000 reliable sources that mention it, with very likely a good number of nontrivial mentions among them. If you're not clear about what this means you should not be proposing deletion of articles about academics. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not the one who says that, the Wikipedia policy does, I can't help but feel that specific piece of the policy was written specifically for cases like this. Google books alone does not provide the "wide array" of sources required, because Google books itself is only one reliable source itself, there are many citations yes but it is all only one source of the information. If articles could exist purely on the grounds of bringing up many Google results, well, I think Wikipedia would be in some pretty big trouble with finding big enough servers. Also the web citations that I removed you can test yourself that they are inaccessible which makes them unreliable.

Every single one of them is a dead link, to quote the citation itself from the article "[dead link]" These should definitely be removed and I did attempt to update the link to his official site which is gamemaker.nl for The Gamemaker Company which he published Super Snake HD through. BlitzGreg (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/markov/
 * http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/html/id.phtml?id=66080
 * http://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/
 * http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/collaborationDistance.html?group_source=134845
 * http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~overm101/curric.pdf
 * Go to the Google scholar listing for Mark Overmars. Look at the little numbers below each listing: "Cited by 3853", "Cited by 2554", etc. Click on them. Each of them will take you to another search result page with literally thousands of reliable references about Overmars' works. As for the dead links: that is not a deletion rationale. The math genealogy link still exists at another site (easily found using Google, or use the mathgenealogy template. The ams link is not dead (but is as it has always been limited to subscribers). And anyway, having sources that are still online is not in any way a deletion rationale. Basically, it seems like you're picking at stupid and minor flaws with the sourcing as an excuse to try to get the article deleted rather than taking even the most minimal effort to clean it up. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hardly at all, I corrected the one link, the speedy deletion template is to removed if you intend to fix the issues with the article. If reliable secondary and tertiary sources exist then by all means add the proper citations to the article and correct it, until then the article is not properly sourced. Also you are still ignoring the root issue here, "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.", it doesn't matter how many results Google books brings up, because you aren't providing sufficient evidence that they are notable. And inaccessible citations are unverifiable and can not be even remotely taken serious, we are going to cite every article on Wikipedia with links that nobody can even open? BlitzGreg (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 23:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Fun fact
Mark Overmars also created fps6.gmk, which is a DOOM style project. Here's the link https://www.indiedb.com/games/fps6gmk LakerMakerBaker606 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)