Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VbGORE


 * 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. Mango juice talk 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

VbGORE
Non-notable online game engine, fails to meet both WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE Percy Snoodle 08:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:WEB states "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.". This project won the "Code of The Month" award from Planet Source Code by over 20 votes (48 votes total) vs hundreds of other codes (reference). Might be best to research before making assumptions. As for WP:SOFTWARE, it is stated "The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.". This argument may be weaker, seeing that many of those using this software are far from complete or want to remain classified until completed, but the vbGORE website clearly states on the front page groups that are using this product. Note that this is only those who have publicly announced their products, and have made a page for their product. --Spodi 05:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know where this came from, do you have a vendetta against VB based games and engines? It seems so. I dont know where web part comes in, but it is clearly software. Please quit trying to delete things you do not understand Shannara
 * Wikipedia is not Sourceforge. Everything that can be verified as 'clearly software' doesn't have a place here. Valrith 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then World of Warcraft, Everquest, Ultima Online, Microsoft Windows would be marked for deletion. This sounds like a double standard. Shannara
 * No double standard here. You want to compare the notability of VbGORE to that of Microsoft Windows?  You don't honestly believe the two are even remotely on the same level, do you? Valrith 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We're discussing notability, not whether or not the software exists or even is software at all. Please see software notability criteria. WoW is played by tons of people and is a cultural phenomenon. Everquest did great job popularising MMORPGs. Ultima Online is a great pioneer of the genre. Millions of people swear by Windows, hundreds of thousands of people swear at Windows every day. The article on VbGORE, however, doesn't exactly have similar claims of fame listed, nor can I find any with a cursory search. If you do have some that may help prove the notability of the software, please do add that to the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Valrith 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This article reads like a promotional piece and has no supporting 3rd party references at all. OfficeGirl 21:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, doesn't appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE really. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe .RON   talk  16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Reads like a sales pamphlet. The Kinslayer 10:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:rs, etc... Wickethewok 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just changed some things around and it doesn't fail those standards in any way anymore; there shouldn't be any problems now? Nexarcon
 * Looks to me like your changes indicate no change in status wrt WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. So, while the additional information is good, this software still fails both. Valrith 11:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6] - Check this is here. The other is NOT relevant as it's only a proposed Criteria, it is not actual Wikipedia Criteria. Nexarcon
 * Can you cite a source which establishes that the award in question is a well-known one? I'd never heard of it, but perhaps I don't move in the right circles.  If you can, then the article does meet the above criterion, and I'll happily change my vote; if not, then I don't see that it does.  Percy Snoodle 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The award clinches it for me, although I still have reservations about it sounding like a sales pamphlet. The Kinslayer 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also remember this is Free software, it's open source and the programmer is not trying to sell it. Remember you cannot really mention WP:SOFTWARE as it can't be justified as policy right; it's just proposed. Nexarcon
 * I'm aware he isn't selling the software, my concern is that the article appears to me as though he is. The Kinslayer 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that wasn't aimed directly at you, I was just mentioning it :), I would also like to mention it has releases too. Not directly at you either, sorry. Nexarcon
 * If you think it sounds too much like an advertisement, feel free to change it to sound more neutral. ;) --Spodi 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been editing this page to help out a bit, trying to make it sound more neutral as I do not want this page to go. Thanks - Nexarcon 08:56, 26 October 2006 (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.