Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axiom Engine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. No consensus, default to keep. Ruslik (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom Engine[edit]

Axiom Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Subject has not been the subject of significant, reliable, independent coverage (WP:GNG). Article does not cite any reliable, independent sources (WP:V) - the Nuclex link provided seems to be a fairly run-of-the-mill blog, unsuitable per WP:SPS. Previously deleted through a prod on these grounds. {primarysources} request repeatedly removed by original contributor, who believes that the engine's source code itself satisfies it. My own search for references (admittedly only a web search) only turns up directory entries with the developer's description. Marasmusine (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of verifiability. I, too, came up empty on a quick Google search (among the tons of false positives lying around). MuZemike (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Just because YOU are not able to verify my claims by reading the source code, doesn't mean they are invalid. It's the same as me saying the article about Human anatomy should be deleted, because I don't get Gray's Anatomy... The article only states facts that can be verified by looking at the project/source - same way I can say google.com is a web-search-engine and it can be confirmed by going on the site and trying it out. Just leave the article alone. --zeroflag (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Without even needing to look at the article it is clear that you do not understand how sourcing works on Wikipedia. You need reliable sources from independent, third-party sources to demonstrate notability. I'd also advise you to read WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Without even bothering to read more than the first sentence of your comment, I can see that the problem goes much deeper than "too tight guidelines". You people don't understand how FOSS works. We do not write books about it. It already IS open, so everyone can READ it, VERIFY it and CONFIRM it. Why the hell do we need books/articles/whatever about obvious things? Do whatever you want, but you people are turning a nice collection of stub-link-collections in one useless pile of boring copy&paste data - yes, I'm referring to wikipedia as a whole. --zeroflag (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I am sorry you feel that way. But it is important that we uphold degrees of standards of notability for the sake of the validity of the encyclopedia. You mention (in CAPSLOCK to no greater importance) the verifiability of the project. What is needed is sources to establish notability. I'll ask you again to refrain from suggesting other editors are "not intelligent life-forms". That way does not lead to productive discussion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having had a look for independent, third-party reliable sources I couldn't find any. I should point out that the issue with the article is not necessarily verifiability (if the code exists and can be pointed to, it clearly exists) but one of notability... which from what I've seen it fails utterly. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment How much references do you find about ODE? Virtually none. Why? Because it's middleware. Because it's a library only programmers use. Because it's open source. Because we open-source-programmers don't bother with publicity, we just make it work. So you want to ban FOSS from wikipedia? Very nice! --zeroflag (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And you still need to read WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I will comply to WP:CIVIL when the people here start reflecting the behavior of an intelligent life-form (WP:RS reqired!). And yes, other stuff exists because that other stuff was NOT reviewed by someone with a Rules>Common Sense attitude.
    No, civility is not optional. Marasmusine (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This goes far deeper than "just axiom". Because according to those (ridiculous) definitions and requirements I hear around here, you'd have to delete virtually every article about FOSS. Think about it - and(/or if that fails) leave it alone. --zeroflag (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tend to agree with zeroflag here, a case for non-notability could be made for hundreds of articles about open source libraries/tools/etc. if the same shortsighted standards were applied to them as are applied to eg. articles about people or organizations when discussing notability claims. --SeveredCross (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked at the Computing Wikiproject a little while ago, about the possibility of a notability guideline for libraries (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Libraries). One reasonable reply, but without any concensus, we should use the WP:GNG. If no third party has written substantially about any of these hundreds of open source libraries, the then yes, they should be considered for deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider substantial? And what qualifies as a third party? Because if I write about it in my blog, I'd be a third party, and if I write more than, say, a hundred lines about it, it'd be substantial. But something tells me that you'd still delete it, because you missed the point - again.
Axiom is a FOSS C# 3D rendering engine, in alpha/beta status. There's several problems with that: C#, while being a very popular language, is not old enough to have gathered any significant amount of (book-grade) authors. 3D rendering is an expert topic that very few people understand, yet many people are trying to understand - removing articles about related projects would further add to that problem. Alpha/Beta status means it doesn't have a public release yet, but it's still usable for research and hobbyist purposes. And FOSS means they don't have any money to pay an author to write a book about it. So what you're doing is basically delete anything that is 1) new/bleeding-edge/modern, 2) specialized, 3) different and 4) free.
Again, you can NOT use the same guidelines for FOSS and, say, physics. It just doesn't work. --zeroflag (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I use WP:N to measure substantiality. Your blog, a self-published source, would not meet the requirement of "reliable". Marasmusine (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doing a search for Axiom Engine in Google produces the first several hits as direct links to details about the subject of this article, so its clearly verifiable. http://axiomengine.sourceforge.net/mediawiki-1.13.2/index.php/Main_Page is the main site for this library. There happens to be another product, Isuzu Axiom Engine mount which also turns up results, but that's the the nature of searches. If you search for Axiom 3D Engine you turn up more reasonable results. This article should be kept alive. Non notable? Open source libraries are often used by a small subset of the Wikipedia community (Game Programmers) but that doesn't mean that it's not a viable article, does it? If it does I think there's a problem with Wikipedia personally. Another thing to note is that Axiom based on a highly popular 3D open source engine called OGRE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGRE_3D. OGRE has been around for many years and has been used in commercial games. It's also not just a port (a conversion from one programming language to another) since Axiom actually has completely different features in many cases, such as its ability to run in XNA on the Xbox 360, which is something that Ogre itself cannot do. In fact, Axiom is one of very few feature rich rendering engines that can do this. Falagard (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC) — Falagard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As a new user, could you take a look at WP:N and WP:V, then specify exactly which google hits you believe meet the requirements? The sourcefource wiki certainly doesn't. Axiom does not inherit any notability that OGRE may have. Marasmusine (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the sourceforge wiki doesn't meet the notability and verification requirements. At the same time - the problem with those requirements is that many open source software libraries don't get articles, pages, or stories written about them even while they're being used by hundreds of developers. They're often useful libraries, used by hundreds of developers in commercial and non commercial software products that have been released. People will perhaps mention that they're using the library on a forum or in a blog post, or suggest that library to other users on a forum when it meets their needs. Alternatively they'll maintain a wiki, such as the SourceForge wiki, and put up tutorials, frequently asked questions, documentation, etc. about the software library. Up until two years Ogre might not have passed the notability and verification requirements even though several commercial games had already been published using the library, and thousands of hobbyist and independent game developers were working with it daily. It is only since then that a single Gamasutra article (an interview with the author of the software no less) and a book have been written about the library. I realize Axiom does not inherit Ogre's notability. And perhaps Axiom isn't notable enough to be included on Wikipedia just yet. I'm also not going to be first or the last to complain about the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia - but I do think there is a problem with them in the case of open source software libraries. I believe they deserve to be included in Wikipedia and are getting the shaft. Falagard (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which hundreds of articles are you talking about? If these articles have survived AfDs, you may have a point. If not, I'll propose them for AfD too. As for what "substantial", how about one reliable third party source? It's not like this is a hard requirement. I have several computer programs I've written in the past that I wouldn't dream of writing a Wikipedia article for - let alone if I started including all the projects that I haven't finished yet. It's not like getting a reliable third party reference should be hard. Mdwh (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll print out that comment of yours, frame it, and use it as a poster-example of why mankind is headed for extinction. Seriously, you're posting on a free encyclopedia, and are deleting content about free projects. Err? --zeroflag (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you should read WP:CIVIL. Yes, Wikipedia is a free project, but somehow it manages to get vast amounts of coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. As do many free projects. Axiom Engine however does not. Trying to somehow make this an issue of "free software" is avoiding the issue - no one is saying that free software isn't notable, just that Axiom Engine seems to have zero coverage. As I said, even small projects I've written in the past have managed 3rd party reliable coverage, and I wouldn't expect to see them in an encyclopedia. Mdwh (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose either keep or merge with other similar project articles. According to GNG, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If a stand-alone article is not warranted (and I've yet to be convinced either way) then it could still be retained in a list article without violating GNG, correct? --Chris (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not a list article, no, not really. If it could be mentioned in another article that passes WP:RS (a core guideline) then fair enough; maybe some form of merge might be appropriate. Which would you suggest? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, proposed inclusion in a list article is fine, provided the material follows our basic WP:V policy, which it currently doesn't. Marasmusine (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — looks like the rally cry to stop the "Wikipedia Gestapos" has been sounded at http://axiomengine.sourceforge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=505. MuZemike (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whilst the material can be verified from the source code, it's not like there's any information here beyond what's already stated on the project's webpage. What's the value in having a summary of [1]? Without any third party sources, I can't see what information could be added to this article, beyond what is already available on the article's webpage. Mdwh (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability. In searching for sources, it would seem that Isuzu's motor car engine by the same name actually has a better claim for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And guess why that is? Because Isuzu is making money on that engine, hence they can(/have to) invest money to get noted. Axiom does not get any money, so there is no staff of PR people trying to advertise it, hence it's only known among certain groups - like 3D programmers which are rare enough as it is and are bound to become even rarer, because any resource about 3D programming gets deleted... Seriously, it is getting ridiculous how stubborn and stuck up the editors on wikipedia are. Remember, wikipedia is FREE - so stop banning/deleting information about other free projects, you're shooting yourself in the foot. --zeroflag (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of publications that cover free projects. Every issue of Edge magazine, for one. Marasmusine (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is not about self-promotion, it is about third party coverage. I personally don't have a staff of PR people to advertise something I thought up today, but that doesn't mean I get an Wikipedia page for it. Things can receive third party coverage, without the original source spending money on promotion. Mdwh (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There seems to be a decent following for this product, it is mentioned in at least two books: Cutting Edge Robotics By Vedran Kordic and The Role of 3D Simulation in the Advanced Robotic Design, Test and Control by Laszlo Vajta and Juhasz. It is also referred to by many 3D gaming applications, 3rd party fee based gaming engines, programming websites, programmer to programmer interest groups and programming blogs. For what it is and what it has achieved (market acceptance), I believe the Axiom 3D Engine code base has proven notability, perhaps not from a mainstream product perspective, but surely from a 3D Engine source code perspective. Also, the general public will contribute to the article providing verifiability based upon use of the source codes which are used to create commercial products. Also note that a separate article for this product (rather than merge) would be most suitable since it would enhance many other 3D articles such as 3D computer graphics, 3D computer graphics software, etc. - DustyRain (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Cutting Edge Robotics approaches what is needed for verifiability. In terms of notability, enough to convince me that it's worth mentioning in the OGRE article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Axiom_Engine&oldid=1070183909"