Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYOND


 * 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 as failing notability due to lack of reliable sources needed for verifiability. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

BYOND

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article presents no assertion of notability (WP:N) or independent references (WP:V). Prod with these concerns was removed anonymously without comment in July. Request for sources since then has unearthed, a blog which isn't sufficient per Reliable source examples (blog author has 22 ghits) Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability, nor could I find any. Article is also written in an in-universe tone and reads somewhat like an advertisement. It's kind of interesting that this article has been in this state or similar for over four years without a single deletion or trip to AfD. MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No Need For Deletion - Most of the info you need to know about BYOND is hosted on the BYOND website itself, so of course it's going to be hard to find outside sources. There used to be an outside website called BYONDscape, but it eventually became part of BYOND's Dream Makers articles. Now look at Game Maker as an example. They're both very similar types of software and most of the sources on their Wikipedia articles link directly back to their own web page. The only difference in notability is Game Maker's tiny blurb in CNN's Web 2.0 article. SuperAntx (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could actually take a look at the WP:Notability guideline. If you know of any sources like the ones it suggests, that would be very helpful. If the only reliable information is on the official website, that's not enough for notability. Marasmusine (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Richard Bartle has been quoted, "BYOND is 100% free, and is excellent." Technically that's a review, a very short one. SuperAntx (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly "significant coverage". Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Terra Nova had an article on free game creation software which was written by Richard Bartle, a notable person in the field of game development. The blog is notable and counts as an outside reference. BYOND IS NOTABLE - CASE CLOSED! SuperAntx (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Terra Nova had an article on free game creation software which was written by Richard Bartle, a notable person in the field of game development. The blog is notable and counts as an outside reference. BYOND IS NOTABLE - CASE CLOSED! SuperAntx (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The site is used by tens of thousands of game developers and creators, more than five thousand of which are on at any given time. Though informal, many reviews and information of the system is available (see: http://www.mmorpg-info.org/timewasters/byond-a-great-engine/ and http://www.softarea51.com/windows/Games_Entertainment/Other_Games_Entertainment/Review-BYOND.html as well as associatedcontent.com/article/758701/byond_build_your_own_net_dream_with.html). BYOND has been featured on G4's 'Attack of the Show'. The website has approximately a 10,000 ranking on Alexa, far higher than many websites featured on Wikipedia (Maddox, anyone?). It's highly notable, and growing, and deserves its place on wikipedia. Joe D (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are not valid reasons to keep. The sources are not reliable (see WP:RS) nor do they go into any significant coverage of the engine. The Alexa argument is not valid (see WP:ALEXA) as it is the presence of verifiable sources, not popularity of a site as measured by ghits, Alexa, etc., that determines notability. Also read WP:WAX; we are not talking about other articles here. If there are other articles that do not meet notability guidelines, they will be dealt with in due manner. I suggest reading the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding verifiability and notability. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. But I believe this qualifies as reliable source, even if it is short. http://downloads.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=209219 Oronar (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — there is a potential canvassing attempt going on at the website's forum here. MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there's not. That was a single person saying it, and he was already criticized for doing so. We've been attempting to look for legitimate ways to keep the article. Popisfizzy (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (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.