Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Maker Language


 * 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   redirect to GameMaker: Studio. Delete & redirect: as Hellknowz explains, there is little to merge, and the only possibly relevant content is unsourced and would be better off being rewritten entirely with references. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Game Maker Language

 * – ( View AfD View log  Maker Language Stats )

Lack of Notability and citations. Fails Notability. InfamousMaker (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 27.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 18:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to GameMaker: Studio. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed I would agree to that as the GameMaker: Studio already contains enough of what needs to be said on the subject. InfamousMaker (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Makes more sense to delete it really most of the information was outdated anyway and provided no citations anyhow. 72.72.229.110 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to GameMaker: Studio as basically WP:HOWTO. This is a language documentation, not an encyclopedic article about the language, which by itself is not a notable topic covered in-depth in independent sources, i.e. WP:GNG. Only thing that could be mergable is the criticism section, but it is completely unsourced, so I cannot endorse such a merge. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Although true, those aren't actually reasons to delete alone. Many of our articles are outdated and lack citations, that doesn't necessarily make them non-notable per our notability guideline. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:40, 5 December 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.