922:
than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". "significant, interesting, or unusual" are subjective judgments; if I may be permitted to quote a very good essay on this topic, "notability is not fame and importance, notability is not subjective". Deletion is called for when an article fails WP:N or passes it but fails WP:NOT; neither case has been demonstrated here. cab (call) 8:40 am, 20 June 2011, Monday (12 days ago) (UTC+4)
572:- The collaboration with NVidia is not being ignored. It has been considered and for me, is not an independent source. Companies making deals to develop stuff with NVidia, (or any other company) doesn't establish notability when there is insufficient independent coverage as is the case here. As for being an unusual article, this is in no way quirky or unusual. In fact, developing a video gaming product is blandly normal and business as usual. --
542:, doing a live demo and presentation at GDC 2011 is not reliable enough to prove what they are working on? OK, I agree that they are not incredible notable yet, so you want to delete the article and them a month later add it again because Develop magazine runs a full featured article on them? because everything on Knowledge is only about hugely notable subjects, right?
271:
Giving a presentation at GDC on NVidia's Game
Technology Theater is a press release? You obviously think NVidia allows anyone to pop into their booth to present stuff, right? Well, they don't, it is usually a personal invitation based on their knowledge of your technology and they are very careful to
921:
Keep
Sources cited are sufficient to demonstrate notability. As Cullen328 correctly points out, a source does not need to be solely devoted to a topic to establish a presumption of notability for the topic, merely to cover the topic in more than a trivial fashion. WP:N: "Significant coverage is more
304:
and that is my point, the presentation at GDC 2011 was vetted by NVidia, not a press release sent to a newspaper, I assume that you understand the differences between the two and that was my refutation, not whether it was primary or not. Also I think that presenting the technology as part of the
592:
of the sources, not about notability, if you read my comment again you will see that I agree that the company is not a notable one at the moment. What I do not understand is why someone keeps saying that there are no reliable sources about the information on the article when they did a live
431:- The company exists, they gave a presentation at GDC 2011, two creditable sources, NVidia and Strawdog Studios, are aware of them or working with them directly and nothing on their wiki page contradicts what they show on their demos or what they presented.
666:) is an evolving area and they seem interesting. Surely this can be a stub article for now, and extended as the space evolves? There are other web engine developers who are already on Knowledge with very little public information available (
520:
as it all revolves around the fundraising and the partnership with
Strawdog, and the articles fail to review the subject in a substantive manner. It seems likely that they may become notable in the future, but not just yet -
149:
48:. looks like we do now have a consensus and that the issue is that the sources are not quite there. This now falls to delete but I will specifically all recreation if the sourcing improves
621:
In regards to deletion of an article notability is usually the main issue. Primary and secondary sources may be used to build content (although no article should be based on such sources
607:
The comment about the unusual articles is just to point out that lack of notability is not always a reason to delete an article, obviously my
English is not good enough to be sarcastic.
637:). Both Strawdog and Nvidia are affiliated with Turbulenz, and as such are not suitable to establish notability, even in the case that they would be suitable to reference the article -
189:
1042:
As the nominator notes, the only reliable coverage of the company, apart from regurgitated press releases, is a brief NYT blog entry, which is not quite enough in terms of
925:
I am not sure where this comment originated since it is unsigned; feel free to revert my strikethrough but please provide some background in the edit as well. Thanks!
546:
I think there is place for this company on
Knowledge, there are smaller companies listed here than Turbulenz. Btw, if you want to known the team you can attend this
359:
143:
110:
727:- I think we could agree that there are reliable primary sources, so the issue seems to be the lack of secondary ones? well, in that case I consider this
188:. Note that this platform has yet to be released. As best as I can tell, it is in beta testing based own their won web site. The only coverage is this
807:
coverage in reliable sources: NVidia, Strawdog, Gamasutra, VentureBeat. You have not refuted that there are both reliable primary and secondary sources.
347:
710:
is not a good reason for keeping this article. Each article at AFD needs to stand on its own merits. What coverage exists to establish notability? --
206:
And
Knowledge doesn't ever talk about products in beta testing? Anyway, this article from the San Francisco Cronicle is not a reprint of the NT Times:
771:, and wait a fixed period of time, for example 2 months, for new secondary sources to appear before finally (or temporary) deleting the article.
272:
associate their name with other people. And the presentation they gave pretty much contains most of the information already on the wiki page.
1004:- The only coverage about this company in independent reliable sources to just note that they raised $ 5 million in financing. Based on
453:
323:
We can use reliably published primary sources if there is sufficient secondary sourcing. We cannot base an article on primary sources.
909:
852:
692:
833:
510:
508:
243:
210:
913:
696:
457:
735:
post both secondary and reliable, they are both analysis of the technology and personal interviews, clearly not press releases.
17:
377:
239:, I guess NVidia is a reliable source?. Btw, you can see part of their product offering running on their YouTube channel:
83:
78:
503:
670:). As the Turbulenz page stands it's informative without being a marketing article. I'd keep this in it's current form.
164:
87:
131:
70:
732:
1073:
365:
353:
36:
1072:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
207:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
212:, this one about Strawdog Studios mentioning singing a contract to develop a game for the Turbulenz platform:
905:
892:
812:
776:
740:
612:
598:
559:
501:
449:
436:
314:
277:
223:
948:
it looks like it was added by
Spartaz when he undid his close. I've asked him about it on his talk page. --
247:
209:, it is about their presence at GDC 2011, this one is about the launch of a program to fund third parties:
125:
848:
688:
675:
410:- I was only able to locate press releases and other primary sources. We cannot base an article on these (
257:
Do you know how to identify press releases, and why these must not form the basis for
Knowledge articles?
667:
953:
808:
772:
736:
608:
594:
555:
540:
484:
445:
432:
419:
328:
310:
291:
273:
262:
219:
901:
888:
844:
684:
671:
885:- I found this article which appears to be a second/third party source with comment and some analysis
121:
840:
707:
1058:
1034:
1017:
996:
983:
957:
934:
896:
875:
856:
816:
798:
780:
744:
719:
679:
646:
616:
602:
581:
563:
530:
488:
440:
423:
399:
332:
318:
295:
281:
266:
251:
227:
201:
52:
1005:
763:
749:
If we do not agree of what is primary and what is secondary, I would propose that in the spirit of
157:
171:
642:
526:
395:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
886:
232:
I have found a reference to the presentation
Turbulenz gave on the NVidia Booth at GCD 2011:
1030:
969:
949:
930:
480:
469:
415:
324:
287:
258:
237:
180:
This article is about a video gaming platform that has not received sufficient coverage in
750:
1025:- Inadequate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability.
1049:
1013:
871:
794:
715:
634:
577:
371:
197:
137:
74:
537:
233:
1043:
630:
517:
993:
980:
638:
626:
589:
543:
522:
513:
391:
181:
49:
625:), but in order to see if the article is kept then the subject must have received
104:
309:
way, have you actually watched the presentation? the demoed the technology live.
1026:
926:
411:
185:
213:
972:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
536:
I do not understand why you guys keep ignoring the collaboration with NVidia
472:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1009:
867:
790:
728:
711:
573:
505:
193:
66:
58:
240:
302:
primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in
Knowledge
992:
Originally closed this as no consensus but have relisted per request.
663:
659:
588:
My comment about NVidia is about the repeated comments about lack of
192:
of a tech blog which is really about the company raising some funds.
755:
For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort
500:, for now. Aside from the NYT reprint I found these three articles
216:
547:
516:). Even with these, I feel it lacks significant coverage to meet
236:, this is the direct link to the recording of that presentation:
1066:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
551:
286:
It's still a primary source, my question to you still stands.
215:
and Strawdog Studios is a recognized entity in Knowledge:
1008:, that is not sufficient coverage to meet notability. --
945:
384:
100:
96:
92:
785:
Notability is not unclear in this instance. There is
234:
The Future of Browser Gaming with the Turbulenz Engine
156:
627:
significant coverage by independent reliable sources
979:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
479:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
803:Notability is obviously unclear because there is
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1076:). No further edits should be made to this page.
348:list of video game related deletion discussions
789:significant coverage in reliable sources. --
757:, we could simply follow the recommendation:
170:
8:
346:Note: This debate has been included in the
769:tag on the article to alert other editors
593:presentation with a second party at GDC.
376:
629:(the actual concerned guidelines being
866:- Not relevant to this discussion. --
832:- The article is now attached to the
7:
507:and two more from gamesindustry.biz
512:(which I cannot assess in terms or
382:
300:According to Knowledge guidelines
24:
834:Knowledge:WikiProject_Video_games
370:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
364:
358:
305:NVidia presence at GDC is a
708:existence of other articles
352:
1093:
897:08:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
876:14:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
857:13:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
817:13:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
799:13:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
781:12:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
745:12:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
720:14:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
680:13:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
647:17:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
617:16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
603:16:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
582:12:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
564:09:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
531:02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
489:00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
441:13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
424:12:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
400:03:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
333:13:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
319:08:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
296:19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
282:13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
267:10:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
252:19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
228:18:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
202:17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
1069:Please do not modify it.
1059:06:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
1035:18:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
1018:01:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
997:17:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
984:17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
958:01:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
935:18:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
53:08:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
914:few or no other edits
697:few or no other edits
458:few or no other edits
916:outside this topic.
699:outside this topic.
460:outside this topic.
668:ShiVa (game engine)
539:also reported here
307:reliably published
44:The result was
1057:
986:
937:
917:
860:
843:comment added by
731:article and this
700:
491:
461:
402:
1084:
1071:
1056:
1054:
1047:
978:
974:
924:
899:
859:
837:
768:
762:
682:
658:- Cloud gaming (
478:
474:
443:
389:
388:
387:
380:
374:
368:
362:
356:
345:
190:NY Times reprint
182:reliable sources
175:
174:
160:
108:
90:
34:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1074:deletion review
1067:
1050:
1048:
967:
923:
838:
766:
760:
467:
383:
351:
117:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1090:
1088:
1079:
1078:
1062:
1061:
1037:
1020:
999:
989:
988:
987:
976:
975:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
939:
938:
920:
918:
880:
879:
878:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
747:
652:
651:
650:
649:
605:
585:
584:
550:or just check
534:
533:
494:
493:
492:
476:
475:
464:
463:
462:
426:
404:
403:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
178:
177:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1089:
1077:
1075:
1070:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1055:
1053:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1000:
998:
995:
991:
990:
985:
982:
977:
973:
971:
966:
965:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
942:
941:
940:
936:
932:
928:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
898:
894:
890:
887:
884:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
862:
861:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
835:
831:
828:
818:
814:
810:
809:Latestversion
806:
802:
801:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
783:
782:
778:
774:
773:Latestversion
770:
765:
756:
752:
748:
746:
742:
738:
737:Latestversion
734:
730:
726:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
702:
701:
698:
694:
690:
686:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
654:
653:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:
618:
614:
610:
609:Latestversion
606:
604:
600:
596:
595:Latestversion
591:
587:
586:
583:
579:
575:
571:
568:
567:
566:
565:
561:
557:
556:Latestversion
553:
549:
545:
541:
538:
532:
528:
524:
519:
515:
511:
509:
506:
504:
502:
499:
496:
495:
490:
486:
482:
477:
473:
471:
466:
465:
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:Latestversion
442:
438:
434:
433:Latestversion
430:
427:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
405:
401:
397:
393:
386:
379:
373:
367:
361:
355:
349:
344:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
311:Latestversion
308:
303:
299:
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
284:
283:
279:
275:
274:Latestversion
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:
235:
230:
229:
225:
221:
220:Latestversion
217:
214:
211:
208:
204:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:to establish
183:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:Find sources:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1068:
1065:
1051:
1040:Weak delete.
1039:
1022:
1006:WP:CORPDEPTH
1001:
968:
902:Bigdawg15779
889:Bigdawg15779
882:
863:
845:Mutande65537
839:— Preceding
829:
804:
786:
758:
754:
724:
703:
685:Mutande65537
672:Mutande65537
655:
622:
569:
535:
497:
468:
428:
407:
306:
301:
231:
205:
179:
167:
161:
153:
146:
140:
134:
128:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
950:Ron Ritzman
912:) has made
733:VentureBeat
695:) has made
590:reliability
514:reliability
481:Ron Ritzman
456:) has made
416:Marasmusine
325:Marasmusine
288:Marasmusine
259:Marasmusine
244:86.17.249.8
144:free images
1052:Sandstein
836:project.
764:notability
186:notability
729:Gamasutra
67:Turbulenz
59:Turbulenz
970:Relisted
946:this dif
910:contribs
853:contribs
841:unsigned
759:Place a
751:WP:FAILN
693:contribs
470:Relisted
454:contribs
111:View log
1002:Comment
994:Spartaz
981:Spartaz
864:Comment
830:Comment
725:Comment
704:Comment
639:frankie
635:WP:CORP
570:Comment
523:frankie
392:MrKIA11
150:WP refs
138:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
1044:WP:GNG
1027:VQuakr
1023:Delete
927:VQuakr
805:enough
706:- The
664:Gaikai
660:OnLive
631:WP:GNG
552:github
518:WP:GNG
498:Delete
408:Delete
122:Google
88:delete
46:delete
944:From
623:alone
548:event
544:WP:UA
165:JSTOR
126:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1031:talk
1014:talk
1010:Whpq
954:talk
931:talk
906:talk
893:talk
883:Keep
872:talk
868:Whpq
849:talk
813:talk
795:talk
791:Whpq
777:talk
741:talk
716:talk
712:Whpq
689:talk
676:talk
656:Keep
643:talk
633:and
613:talk
599:talk
578:talk
574:Whpq
560:talk
527:talk
485:talk
450:talk
437:talk
429:Keep
420:talk
412:WP:V
396:talk
385:Talk
329:talk
315:talk
292:talk
278:talk
263:talk
248:talk
224:talk
198:talk
194:Whpq
158:FENS
132:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
414:).
350:. (
172:TWL
109:– (
1046:.
1033:)
1016:)
956:)
933:)
908:•
900:—
895:)
874:)
855:)
851:•
815:)
797:)
787:no
779:)
767:}}
761:{{
753::
743:)
718:)
691:•
683:—
678:)
662:,
645:)
615:)
601:)
580:)
562:)
529:)
487:)
452:•
444:—
439:)
422:)
398:)
390:)
378:RS
331:)
317:)
294:)
280:)
265:)
250:)
242:.
226:)
218:.
200:)
152:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
1029:(
1012:(
952:(
929:(
904:(
891:(
870:(
847:(
811:(
793:(
775:(
739:(
714:(
687:(
674:(
641:(
611:(
597:(
576:(
558:(
554:.
525:(
483:(
448:(
435:(
418:(
394:(
381:·
375:·
372:S
369:·
366:B
363:·
360:N
357:·
354:G
327:(
313:(
290:(
276:(
261:(
246:(
222:(
196:(
176:)
168:·
162:·
154:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
129:·
124:(
116:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.