Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geomerics

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. The article has been improved since the nomination, and the subsequent "keep" opinions have remained unopposed.  Sandstein  06:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Geomerics

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

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

From the contested PROD: No indication of meeting notability guidelines. Article creator has an apparent WP:conflict of interest. Eeekster (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete or merge product usage into relevant game articles Lack of notable references:

• The EDGE article is a deadlink.
• This link does not even mention the company or the engine.
• There is no reference for the engine's use in Need For Speed: The Run.
• Other references are computer graphics conferences proceedings in DICE and SIGGRAPH 2011. The DICE PDF mentions the product as a "want" and that it was used in Battlefield 3, and the SIGGRAPH basically describes what it used, not where it is used.

There is some evidence their product is used in some recent video games. This information could be merged into the relevant pages (e.g. Battlefield 3). Also, main creator of the article, Chrisjldoran is likely Dr. Chris Doran, the founder of Geometrics. That being said, I think the article as it stands follows NPOV guidelines and should not be an issue in this AoD discussion. I Jethrobot (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - There has been an issue with Edge links. Here are the new urls: [1][2]. These announcements have no commentary from Edge though, making them primary sources only. Marasmusine (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Chrisjldoran (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Some minor comments on the above points. Hope they are helpful:

• The Edge link has now been corrected and points to the relevant article. Edge have moved their pages recently. There are quite a few articles on Geomerics on Edge. They can all be referenced if necessary, but equally they are easy to find by someone wanting to dig deeper.
• This link was designed to point to the holding area for DICE documents, rather than the precise document itself. The reference clearly states that the source material is the talk 'Lighting you up in Battlefield 3'. This is available in multiple formats on the landing page and it seemed better to let the viewer chose the form they wanted.
• The DICE reference clearly DOES state that Frostbite 2 uses Enlighten. The slide says that they wanted 'Real-time radiosity' and the way they got it was using Enlighten.
• All Frostbite 2 titles use Enlighten, and that includes Need for Speed. But the publisher will not always highlight technology used in a title. That is the main interest of pages like this one. Future students interested in how games are made will be able to work out what technology was used in what game. Whether that is information worth capturing in Wikipedia is obviously for the community to reach a consensus on. A similar page is that dedicated to Havok.
• I did deliberately chose a userid that identified me as the company founder. I thought that was more honest than inventing a generic id and hiding behind a different email address. I tried to satisfy all NPOV guidelines and have no problem with a Conflict of Interest note on the page.
• Since the initial discussion I have added some more links. Its pretty easy to find stories on Geomerics written by neutral commentators, but the reference section on a Wikipedia page should be more than just a Google listing.

• Keep: Software has been obviously cited by third party and referenced in article. Article is a stub, but should not be marked for deletion. I have not seen any arguments made so far that the article violates wiki policy. Also, those that are making comments here should sign there entries and comments using four tildas. Even though founder of company created article, the article appears to maintain a Neutral POV and does not violoate WP:NPVMichaelJPierce (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keeper: I have gone through the article and contributed and edited the article to maintain Neutrality. The original article creator is no longer the major contributor.MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Geomerics' technology, a real-world application of geometric algebra, is genuinely interesting. But it's not just a technology company; its lead personnel are very much industry people focussed on business and product. It's taken a fair amount of time for the code to get through the development pipeline and into live games, but that does now appear to have happened. Jheald (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  Just to add: we cover quite a range of software in this sort of area in Category:Global illumination software and Category:Rendering systems. It would seem sense to cover Enlighten too; and the sources cited do appear to pass WP:NOTABILITY. Jheald (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2011 (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.