Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farseer Physics Engine


 * 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. Minimal evidence of third-party reliable sources have been provided, with most later participants in the debate failing to recognise any level of significant coverage demonstrating notability or the historical significance asserted by those advocating "keep". ~ mazca  talk 16:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Farseer Physics Engine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I found nothing to show notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete—No coverage found in reliable sources. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 01:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep - while not strongly passing WP:GNG, it might be useful for our users, such as students. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by not strongly? There is no coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  09:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ignore all rules. This topic is a part of computing history. Also, per the article, ..."it is the most comprehensive open source physics engine available for Silverlight." Let's perhaps not be so hasty to delete historical computing topics. Does removal of this stub article actually improve the encyclopedia? Not at all. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Can you verify what you are saying per WP:V? Even if you can verify it, Silverlight has only been around since 2007. What is so historical about that?SL93 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Reliable sources discussing this software here:, JulesH (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to query where exactly the editors above stating that there are no sources have looked for them. My two links turn up on the first page of search results for the article title, the book I cite on the first page of a google books search for the title.  None of these were hard to find.  There are also a further 6 books showing up in the google books search that appear to discuss the correct subject and are published by reputable publishers; 4 in English and 2 in other languages.  Has anyone checked the content of these books prior to stating that there is no reliable coverage of this subject? JulesH (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * InfoQ only has articles written by members. I don't think that a how to video shows notability. I only came up with two book results. Also, it isn't any of your business where and how I searched. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The book that you cited has no preview. Did you read it and those other books to know for sure that this software is mentioned? If you think that I should look at print copies before nominating, that is complete nonsense. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I wonder how this AfD will be closed with a WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:IAR (released in 2007 = historical), and an unreliable source, a how to video, and books that might discuss the software. Worst of all, I'm receiving no responses. Some admins do vote counting instead of weighing the arguments. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete—No coverage found in reliable sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments: (1) By "useful", I mean useful for our core readership, high school and college students, who use Wikipedia more than anyone else. They are especially likely to look for articles about software, and we might as well have such, and work to improve it. However, I am not an expert on the topic, so I acknowledge that this can't help very much. (2) By barely notable, I mean that I could not evaluate the strength of the sources, either in the external links or those discussed above by JulesH and SL93. I give articles and book sources the benefit of the doubt. (3) I am not wedded to this article, and could care less if it's kept or userfied for now. (4) I searched Google scholar for tutorials on this physics engine, and found lots of possible reliable sources. These could be added to beef up the article. Again, I wish I were more of an expert. I am something of a physics autodidact ,and graduated with a Regents diploma from The Bronx High School of Science, but make no claims yet that I am an authority on such. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of coverage in a variety of reliable sources and no demonstration of historical significance. Being as Wikipedia is a reference tool, not a teaching tool, its educational value depends on quality of sourcing so this article really is not useful to high school and college students. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 02:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG, being useful for students isn't a valid reason for keeping this article, nor WP:IAR is neither. No evidence of Northamerica1000 assertion that this software is "computing history", and no one countered SL93 evaluation about the reliability of the two sources that JulesH gave. Secret account 03:27, 26 May 2012 (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.