Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis3D (2nd nomination)

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 Merge to WildTangent. Clear consensus not to keep, merging per ATD.(non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis3D

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was no consensus. It is borderline, but I don't think it passes WP:GNG though it has mentions and some coverage. Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with the previous discussion. The following sources were unearthed last time this was at AfD, but I didn't take the time to dissect them:

Pedersen, Roger E. (2003). Game Design Foundations. Wordware Publishing. p. 166. ISBN 9781556229732.
Chen, Jim X. (2007). Guide to Graphics Software Tools. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 247. ISBN 9780387224305.
Ahearn, Luke (2001). 3D Game Art: F/x & Design. Coriolis. ISBN 9781588801005.

#1 is a source with actual information about the engine, but what is useful is minimal. Three sentences about how Genesis3D was reused for Destiny3D, the rest about some technical and licensing restrictions. #2 is just an appendix page with bare-bones technical information and thus not useful. #3 does not have a preview but, according to summaries available online, the "Part II" of this book is merely a how-to guide for making games in Genesis3D and the related Reality Factory engine, and hence not useful either. In terms of online sources, all that I could find from last time is already in the article, with the exception of a lame April fools' joke. I still think that these sources are not sufficient to satisfy the "significant coverage" aspect of WP:GNG. Courtesy ping to previous AfD'ers: @Ferret, MrClog, and Czar. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent WildTangent. Above assessment is sound that the topic isn't independently notable, but given that there is some source coverage, it would be a sufficient alternative to deletion to merge said content to the developer's article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WildTangent as a WP:ATD per Czar. Nothing much to add on this. The first book source is surprisingly decent, but the rest (including the article's sources) is very weak in terms of the coverage's quality and depth. Doesn't meet WP:GNG on it's own with no multiple significant coverage in reliable sources, but there is a perfect way to WP:PRESERVE the subject elsewhere. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.