English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/BYOND (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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

BYOND

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Was originally deleted at the first Afd, but was relisted after discussion at Deletion review. I am personally neutral in this discussion. Aervanath (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - If I may simply repeat the rationale from my original nomination: "Article presents no assertion of notability (WP:N) or independent references (WP:V). Prod with these concerns was removed anonymously without comment in July. Request for sources since then has unearthed [1], a blog which isn't sufficient per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources? (blog author has 22 ghits)"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. No reliable sources, and not really even an assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Wait, an AfD in which the nominator is neutral? Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, relisted for deletion. Never mind. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - no assertion of notability, all coverage comes from their own website. No indication of independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. No assertion of real-world notability; only sources are from the official website. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Why delete one of the thousand articles with 'no notability' as you say, that is posted throughout the internet. Yet, keep A+_(programming_language). No sources, citations or anything. It's a programming language too. Dream Maker is a programming language, it's also the name of the IDE used on BYOND. BYOND is a community, programming language, and game warehouse. Also, why would all the sources come FROM the website? Where are they supposed to come from? Third-part websites? Everything about BYOND is on BYOND.com, it doesn't need to be anywhere else to have a wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takuy (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- The existence or merits of other articles has no bearing on this one. MuZemike 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Yes, third-party coverage, i.e. real-world notability, is necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia, per policy. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per the exact same rationale I made in the first AFD, which I will reiterate: lack of verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability, nor could I find any. Article is also written in an in-universe tone and reads somewhat like an advertisement. It's kind of interesting that this article has been in this state or similar for over four years without a single deletion or trip to AfD. MuZemike 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"in-universe" is a phrase usually associated with fictional content. I think meant to say something else, since this is a piece of software and not fiction. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I probably should've said NPOV. MuZemike 17:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:V due to lack of WP:RS. MLauba (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge - Put all the game creation systems into one article. The internet needs a stable resource for these. All the stable ones, the ones that you can actually do something with (like BYOND); leave the borkEn alphas on sourceforge. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Merge this with which articles? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:59, 7 April 2009 (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.