Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simulation in entertainment


 * 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 Simulation. History preserved for use in a merge. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Simulation in entertainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Original research. While much of the material in this article is verifiable, the collection of all of these techniques into a single umbrella term of "simulation in entertainment" represents an original idea, falling under the definition of "a new synthesis of published material". The author's AFC submission was rejected for this very reason, but the author went ahead and created the article anyway. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I was actually going to nominate this for AfD myself, although I was waiting to get some feedback from the author first. In addition to the OR concerns (which I share), I don't think there is enough of a single, coherent topic here to warrant an article; I don't think that "simulation", as used in these various contexts, is well-defined enough. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Merge Topic is a neologism and not well focused. I also agree with the AfC conclusion that "A lot of text in the article is probably better suited to other Wikipedia articles such as those referenced in the article." Merge targets include Simulation, Computer-generated imagery, Computer animation, Simulation video game, Life simulation game. Of course this is not going to happen by itself. Ideally the article's author, would step up. If not, is there a way to keep this material around until someone else has the inclination? --Kvng (talk) 03:04, 14 August 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.