Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Molecular Matter


 * 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. Speedy Keep as nominator has withdrawn and there are no arguments for deletion remaining. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Digital Molecular Matter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Very little information, only one reference and overall, the article is in a complete mess. I'm surprised it wasn't nominated a long time ago. I would withdraw this request if somebody knew about the engines development, license etc. Trey  lander  20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

References have been added and details of technology have been updated. The article contains as much if not more information than articles about similar physics engines now. Discussion should be marked closed. User:ice99 16:02, 27 May 2010 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.180.30 (talk) *Comment: The article still needs some improvement IMO. I suggest keeping the discussion open for now and I will still vote Delete. Trey lander  15:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not my field, and I am not a gamer, the article is weak, but a quick google search indicates the technology is real. There are a number of prominent technology partner companies, and it is used (perhaps) widely in the gaming industry. It does not take much effort to locate an abundance of notable sources. Impressive companies have integrated it into their technology offer. I believe the principle holds that if there's good, sourceable, content available, the article should be developed and improved, not deleted.AWHS (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I had no problem finding and adding 4 notable refs. to the article. Strong Keep AWHS (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep, this was sent to Afd. This is what there is now. I know think that the article can be kept and therefore, I change my vote to a snow keep as the nominator. Trey  lander  17:21, 29 May 2010 (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.