Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene Generator Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scene_Generator

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, odd that they didn't come up in my searches but it looks like I was wrong on this occasion. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scene Generator

[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)

As a concept fails applicable notability guidelines such WP:GNG due to lack of coverage and as a product (https://elements.envato.com/graphic-templates/scene-generators) it isn't notable due to lack of major reviews and critical attention. SITH (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Massive failure of WP:BEFORE. There are literally thousands of scholarly articles and books on scene generators. Here are a few: [1], [2], [3], [4], and so on. Sheesh. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these ... I've managed to utilise two of them into the article as citations.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above references FOARP (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: per references. The article iswas not in the greatest state. However the nominator has previously PROD'd and item that had already been PROD'd ignoring the talk page and has now misleading introduced a URL to this nomination which has noting to do with the article. (It does have a little to do with Mockup and a hatnote at the top of the article would not go amiss but it is not a perfect match and might require a tweak to the target which is why I didn't immediately do it). This usage is more in like with Physics which is why I added that to the Physics WikiProject a while ago. So I am concerned the nom. has not fully understood the article to be tackling it. But it is currently a mess. I think I waybacked one fairly good reference earlier today but haven't had time to apply it. Yup probably WP:TROUT the nom. but the article does need improved citations and disambiguating from the URL given by the nom. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC) To confirm I've now improved the article with help from refs above to point where speedy keep is in my opinion fully justified. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 14 November 2018 (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.