Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engine 001


 * 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. To those of you at the offsite forum: your comments didn't address Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, and so didn't weight as heavily in the assessment of consensus. I am willing and happy to discuss how the article would need improving on my talk page and I can even provide a copy of the deleted material to edit up to our standards, if it is possible to do so. Please get in touch with me if this is something you'd be interested in doing. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Engine 001

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

Prod contested on the grounds that this freeware is "shown in a magazine and to be used in a university as a teaching tool." Without specifying which magazine, or which university. Google returns nothing valuable.
 * Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I find some sources but I can find nothing that meets the WP:Source guidelines for reliable, independent sources.. Many of the google hits are not in reference to this game engine but are actually about other engines by the same name--car engines, fire engines, airplane engines, etc.  Cazort (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's official name is "001 Action / RPG Maker", it has indeed been seen in a few magazines around the world confirmed by multiple users, and it will actually be used in a university this Fall, which still needs official confirmation, but it is indeed the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.42.253 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC) — 68.179.42.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Which magazines? Please provide the name of the publication and the issue number. Which university? Please provide a reliable source stating that the university in question intends to use this as a tool. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'PC User', an Australian magazine. Issue is unknown, unfortunately.  Swedish magazine, unknown name/issue, as well.  Its use in a university will be made public nearer to the Fall term, in the coming months.  If all that is needed is mention of this particular, the article will remain existent?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.27.87 (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)  — 67.212.27.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * For reasons of verifiability, you need for that university to make the announcement public before you mention that it will be using the software. If the existence of the article rests on such an announcement, then the article should be deleted for now, and recreated in Fall when the University makes the announcement. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 10:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's included in a few popular sites eg. http://www.rpgrevolution.com/ and http://www.rpgsource.net/, Its has an online community boasting 2300 users, it has its own help wiki with 436 pages and the freeware the site is made for is used by many thousands of users worldwide. In my opinion it deserves a Wikipedia page. It (the wiki page) WILL be improved soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.37.237 (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC) — 122.148.37.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   — 122.148.37.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Can you point to the specific pages, in rpgrevolution.com and rpgsource.net, where Engine 001 is mentioned? Please make sure such pages are not blogs, forums, or wikis. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 10:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * RPG Revolution and RPG Source, respectively. Further mention, Ambrosine, a PageRank 4 site (Game Creation Resources). All sites, we are completely unassociated with.68.179.42.253 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Two of these three sources qualify as trivial, as they only make a mere mention of the engine. The third one, RPG Revolution.com, may not be all that reliable as a source to establish notability, since it has an Alexa ranking a little above 100,000, which is quite high considering that it is mainly a forum. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And the fourth? 67.212.27.87 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as wiki. The help wiki is different than this wiki. MuZemike 14:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note – rally cry from their forums as shown here. MuZemike 14:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: So is the current argument that Engine 001 is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry, or that the quality of the article is poor? In response to "Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as wiki", i was not referring to wikipedia, see http://wiki.engine001.com/Main_Page.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.37.237 (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I might have been referring to something completely different. My apologies. MuZemike 22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: The reason researching this software bore no results for many people was due to them googleing the unofficial name for the project "Engine 001" instead of its official name "001 Action / RPG Maker". Before making a judgment on the popularity of this software please look for it using its official name.122.148.37.237 (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No adequate secondary sourcing present whatsoever to pass WP:NOTE. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:04, 29 March 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.