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. While there are a few sources, there is nothing to show they are reliable, or that the developer is indeed notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warp Pipe (software developer)[edit]

Warp Pipe (software developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

My position from the last AfD, which ended in no consensus, stands; completely unsourced and therefore non-notable software. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as plausible search term to disambiguation page, which in turn will link off to Mario (series)#Recurring gameplay elements and Nintendo GameCube. Additionally, Merge relevant information into the two aforementioned articles. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While someone may type Warp Pipe looking for information on the Warp Pipes in the Mario Series I doubt anyone typing Warp Pipe (software developer) would be looking for that. It would make more sense to have this redirect directly to the Gamecube article.--70.24.180.177 (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those articles contain any information on this subject or the Mario Warp Pipes; it therefore would be misleading to link to such pages. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote amended to include merger of relevant information as part of redirect. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's this "relevant" information? It's certainly not relevant if it's not notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part is to be determined by whoever preforms the merger. I would assume that it's at least notable enough to mentioned in either article, if only in a paragraph or so. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify - which I should really have done after the last AfD since there were no !votes to keep the material. Unsourced does not mean non-notable. The two interviews in the ELs satisfy WP:N. The current, uncited, content needs stripping down to a stub, which then can be built up using those souces. Marasmusine (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I've started rewriting the article from scratch, using the two interviews as sources. If this subject is kept, I recomment renaming to Warp Pipe Technologies. Marasmusine (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article now has verified sources proving notability. --Taelus (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only a couple—how are either of them reliable sources? For a start, WP:VG/S says almost nothing about them. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both sites seem to feature full editorial staffs which display a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nintendojo's editor-in-chief is a managing editor over at IGN. MuZemike 22:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't assert notability, and please delete, I don't want to see this get relisted again just because no one knows what to do with it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You can see what you think these following web search hits - to me they all look like press releases, or speculation about press releases. Has a reliable source actually sat down and looked at the Warp Pipe or Demasked software? [1][2][3][4] I'm not familiar with N-Sider or Nintendojo, so I'm unfortunately still sat squarely on the fence. Marasmusine (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, they seem to contain very little independent coverage of the subject—the other two sources above seem similar to these, too. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources consist of two interviews, featuring a lot of hand-waving and techno-gibberish about something which apparently never went anywhere.. the crux of WP:N is that sources independent of the subject need to do the reporting in detail. The interviewers are not in a position to analyze the software, instead relying on sketchy details from the developer, that's no basis for an article. No prejudice against restoration if something should come of it in the future and it receives the necessary analysis, but there's currently a whole load of nothing to build an article with. Someoneanother 00:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. There's an RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 8#Warp pipe (disambiguation) which is pretty much based on the outcome of this discussion. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (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.