Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ENIGMA Development Environment


 * 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. L Faraone  06:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

ENIGMA Development Environment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of available reliable, unaffiliated sources. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - MrX 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - MrX 16:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable software/gamedev tool not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviewed the new citations, and none are reliable, not to mention in-depth. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Contested the article has more 3rd party citations then does the official GameMaker: Studio article which is entirely first party sources of information. The ENIGMA article contains at least 4 non-affiliated references now, and the program certainly meets Notability 71.169.100.159 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The standard is not non-affiliated references it's significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These are things like in depth independent reviews, not routine entries in databases such as Ohloh and Launchpad (website) and certainly not the websites of redistributors of the software. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is also incorrect, the project has been discussed outside of affiliated sources, take for instance http://www.gmlscripts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=3434 and http://steamcommunity.com/app/214850/discussions/0/810924774505193071/ Steam as well, the article covers not one but two different programs together, that are both very well known about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.100.159 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The key word here is "reliable", not just unaffiliated. Reliability implies an established source with fact-checking, editorial oversight, author credentials. Forums and user posts are certainly not reliable, as anyone can post anything they want. If we used such sources, then anyone could make an article for any topic. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:24, 28 November 2013 (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.