Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CryEngine 3


 * 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. X clamation point  05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

CryEngine 3

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

Game engine not released WP:CRYSTAL (or not according to the sources); not used in any games; does not meet notability requirements; not used by any game titles, does not assert notability  Chzz  ►  19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: software, especially gaming software, has a tendancy to turn into vapor and never become released. Not saying that's the case here, but we just don't know here (thus WP:CRYSTAL). spǝǝp  spɹoʍ  3100ʇnɯɐɥɐq  06:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. That the software is unreleased is irrelevant, as is the fact that nothing has been tied to the technology yet - it has no impact on the notability. Importance, maybe, but that's an entirely separate issue. There's a fair bit of coverage out there for this. CRYSTAL only applies with the absence of sources, and while I don't usually go with posting Google results, just look. Joystiq, Kokatu, IGN, GameSpot, CVG, GamePro, Eurogamer, and more covering the announcement, plus features including interviews and development progress in substantive detail (ie not trivial coverage). It is early days yet for the engine, so there isn't much variation between sources at this time, but the information is there none-the-less. Worst case scenario is a merge (not a plain redirect) to Crytek, but I don't believe that to be necessary. -- Sabre (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The engine isn't in early development and it's extremely unlikely to be abandoned given it's pedigree and how near to completion it is. It's the latest version of a very notable engine. It is difficult to have an open discussion about game engines without someone mentioning the CryEngine. It's the proverbial "Joneses" of engines always brought up when discussing real time graphics. To see how far into to development it is, watch the CryEngine 3 GDC 2009 Presentation. Deleting this article would be pointless, because it would need to be recreated in the near future. Google News currently returns "about 265" results for the exact phrase "cryengine 3". Chzz, it may be helpful for you to reread WP:CRYSTAL. DanielDeibler (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - although the unsigned argument of DanielDiebler seems a bit weak to me (WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:GOOGLE, WP:IKNOWIT), as Sabre has highlighted there are enough independent non-trivial reliable sources covering the engine. MLauba (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That being said, the article should be tagged for cleanup. MLauba (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed, the article needs cleanup as well as expansion. I would expand on it myself but I haven't read the manual of style yet and don't want to create style-correcting work for people. Admittedly, I'm not being very bold in that respect, but it's hard to be bold when people delete your contributions right after you write them rather than tagging them for cleanup . DanielDeibler (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... three days and seven other edits between them. I was bold in removing the content - you were bold in restoring it, and I respect that and didn't enter into any kind of revert war. But a content discussion is for another time. Marasmusine (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, along with CryEngine 2, to CryEngine. All are sufficiently short to be covered by one article. Marasmusine (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The articles are only short because Chzz removed most of the content of CryEngine and CryEngine 2 over the weekend under the argument that a features list is an advertisement and you just removed most of the content of CryEngine 3 today. If neutral-POV features lists for software are not permitted, then we need to do serious housekeeping because features list are common around here since software is most accurately defined by "features" and "capabilities" (See Java 3D, Mac OS X, CATIA, .NET Framework, Windows XP, Opera Mobile, Lotus Notes and Einstein as examples). Some larger software have a separate article just for their features lists (See Features new to Windows XP as an example). If the argument is that future software is the only software subject to this no-features-lists criteria, then should we also remove features lists from Live Anywhere and Mac OS X v10.6 and delete the article for Features new to Windows 7? Speaking of which, CryEngine 3 is further in development than Windows 7, and the article for Windows 7 starts off by stating that it "will be the next release of Microsoft Windows", which is WP:CRYSTAL whereas the article for CryEngine 3 only states known, factual information, citing reliable sources. So should we propose Windows 7 and similar articles for deletion on the grounds that they might not end up being released? I'm not neccesarily opposed to merging CryEngine 3 with CryEngine 2, but it's important to note that CryEngine is owned by Ubisoft and the other two are owned by Crytek. DanielDeibler (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We know other stuff exists, all that is irrelevant to this article. MuZemike 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point, and that's probably my fault for not writing a properly focused comment. My point isn't "Billy got to stay up late, why can't Tommy?" though I suppose it comes across sounding that way because of all of the examples. My point is "Billy got to stay up late for a reason, that reason being that staying up late is acceptable, so why are we trying to tell Tommy he can't stay up late when it's perfectly acceptable?" The answer to "why does no one have a problem with Windows 7 having a whole article devoted to its feature set?" is because there isn't (that I've been able to find after searching for over an hour) a guideline that suggests it shouldn't. Software is described by what it does. That's what software is; it's the things it does, it's "features". The purpose of bringing up all of those examples was to challenge someone who thinks that articles about unreleased software are not allowed (which is untrue) or that listing software features is not allowed (which is also untrue) to propose an article like Windows 7 for deletion. No one will do that because more people will see it and they would make a fool of themselves because there's no reason to delete it, just as there is no reason to delete CryEngine 3. There are no guidelines that suggest any problem with articles with properly sourced, factual, non-speculative information about software in development. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's clear that WP:CRYSTAL pertains to unverifiable information, which would not include properly sourced, factual, non-speculative information about the development of a piece of software. "You" may like Windows 7 and not like CryEngine 3, but they both pass WP:CRYSTAL. On second thought, as I pointed out before, Windows 7 fails WP:CRYSTAL in its first sentence, but I'm going to fix that right now. DanielDeibler (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I get your point clearly. You're still implicating on the merits of other articles. Stay on point with this article. Some of us are trying to work with you. MuZemike 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only articles we should be making comparisons with are Featured Articles. Let me know if you see one with a "features list". In this case, an in-depth specification of the engine is already available at the Crytek page, directly linked to in the article. Marasmusine (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. The availability of information elsewhere is a requirement, not a flaw. It's one of the three core content policies we have here. If the information in the Technical data section weren't available at the Crytek page, then you'd have a reason to remove it. DanielDeibler (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per S@bre. Notwithstanding the arguments by the creator for keeping it, the fact is that there are plenty of reliable sources (indicated above) that can provide verifiable speculation, which is OK. Cleanup and expansion are preferable over deletion in this particular case. MuZemike 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The engine pass notability. There is a load of coverage from many sources. Through i must admit that Cryengine 3 must be merged to CryEngine 2. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is established by coverage mentioned by others.  Some links to these reviews needs to be added to the article though.  I'll go work on that now.   D r e a m Focus  11:31, 3 April 2009 (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.