Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horde3D (game 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Horde3D (game engine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable game engine. Google returns no reliable sources, and the sources provided in the article are all primary or unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Horde 3D engine is well know in the gaming community. It's used by


 * multiple independent game studios for commercial games like Redline rush! and Timelines: Assault on America
 * 3D authoring utilities like OBI 3D Kamin-Viewer
 * University Classes to teach 3D engine development.

The problem here is not notability. It's that the article was just written and is lacking all of these details.Slacka123 (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article was also linked from list of game engines and waiting to be created before I created it. The engine also integrates with a large number of languages and interfaces with multiple programs. And also yields a significant number of search results with independent sources. BlitzGreg (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would advise adding some of these third party reliable sources, because I don't see any in the article currently, and I was not able to locate any.  Notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter if multiple commercial games use it.  Popularity is also a poor reason to keep non-notable software; it must be notable, not popular.   Notability is not established by how many people discuss it forums. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep. I found several dozen mentions of the game engine and how it was used in peer-reviewed journal articles and academic papers presented at conference proceedings, in English, Italian, German, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Hungarian scholarly publications. NinjaRobotPirate, you said "Google returns no reliable sources", which I'm guessing means you did a Google web search. Go to scholar.google.com and books.google.com and search for "horde3d" or "horde 3d" (with quotes), and you'll filter out a lot of the non-reliable-source references to the software you get doing a general web search. You could argue the reliable-source coverage isn't significant enough, but not that it doesn't exist. You and Slacka123 also point to the article's current lack of good reference citations, and while I agree it lacks them, that's explicitly improper grounds for article deletion, as explained in WP:BEFORE; the article's current state is fairly irrelevant if there are reliable sources with which it can be improved. ––Agyle (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2014 (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.