Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston PhysX Engine

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 Delete. — Scientizzle 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johnston PhysX Engine

Johnston PhysX Engine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Non notable software (rendering engine). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to PhysX, though I'm willing to consider that such a redirect could be implausible - in which case deletion would be better. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looking back on this now, I agree with the lower two posters that there's nothing that matches this page to PhysX. My apologies on suggesting the redirect. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to PhysX I agree with the above poster, although I would like to add that this article also requires cleanup and linking if it survives. ― LADY GALAXY 05:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The articles creator was actively expanding the article when I took this to AfD, but unfortunately, he was also removing AfD notices. After being warned, he got blocked, so that may have stopped the developement of the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfair The articles creator is unable to go onto wikipedia because of the ban, but I am one of the fellow creators of the Johnston and it has no relation to PhysX in anyway. It is not a redirect, if the name is the problem, we will change it. User: xXxTehxXx 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that the editor was making useful contributions but cannot now and the nom was involved in an edit war (on the right side of it if such a thing can happen) I'd suggest the nom withdraw the AfD for now and bring it back in a few weeks. Beyond that, I don't know enough about the topic to have a clue. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I'm not implying bad faith on the part of the nom. I merely think that there is a chance this is a notable topic and we should take the time to figure it out. Also WP:BITE might apply here. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit startled by this. I do recognise that you say you don't think I was acting in bad faith, do you believe placing back an AfD tag is edit warring? And do you think that for putting it back, when he kept removing it, which resulted in the users block (he should be long unblocked now, by the way), I should withdraw my nom? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that "Johnston PhysX Engine" refers to the same topic described by the PhysX article, and since this article appears to refer to a product that doesn't exist yet, it also runs afoul of WP:CBALL. --DachannienTalkContrib 07:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Particularly for things like software, if they're notable, they should be on the web. A Google search for "Johnston PhysX Engine" brings up only four pages, all four traceable back to this Wikipedia article (i.e. either Wikipedia or wikirage). In effect, not a single Google hit. Not notable. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Google search found less than one page of results, and all were from Wikipedia/mirrors of Wikipedia. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:29, 24 January 2008 (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.