Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LyN

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 merge to Ubisoft Montpellier. SilkTork (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LyN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unnotable proprietary game engine that does not appear to be used anymore, so I don't expect any more sources to come. Fails WP:GNG and any other notability guideline I can think of. Lordtobi (✉) 08:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 08:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 08:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Does short mean non-notable? This was used by four notable games. Even if not innovative in the way that the Quake engine was, it's still an identificable, sourceable step in the development of such things, by a major games house using it for their main titles. If we delete this, it leaves a gap. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Andy Dingley, it's just one source that says "the engine was developed together with this game", the others are "this game uses the engine". There is exactly no source that goes into any detail that would qualify for "significant coverage" as required by WP:SIGCOV. Lordtobi (✉) 10:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Is your point that this article is inaccurate, and that it wasn't used for the games claimed?

Or is it that despite being used, as described, it's non-notable anyway?

Because otherwise you seem to be advocating the legal fallacy of 'riding two horses', and advancing two claims as to why it should go, when each claim actually defeats the other. If the article is inaccurate, then fix it. But if it's broadly correct in what it claims, then it should stay. At one time, Ubisoft used it for their Rayman title (i.e. their premier title). It was Ubisoft's main product for that period. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is accurate. It is also complete, as represented by sources. The problem is that this article's "complete" is two introductory sentences and a four-point bulleted list. I do not see where you get the notion from that "this topic is not notable" and "there is not enough in-depth coverage to sustain this topic's notability" contradict each other.

The topic is not notable just because it was used in some notable games, because notability is not inherited. LyN was also never used for any Rayman title, as you claim.

Please take a look at the guideline I linked, starting at point #1:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The first source is an interview, in which the interviewee claims:

Yes, a brand new engine called LyN was created alongside Rabbids Go Home and will serve many forthcoming games. It is a revolutionary graphical engine thanks to its structure and technology that make it at once easy to use, effective and evolvable. With LyN, we can create games for both old-gen and next-gen consoles.

The other three sources have this to say:

We actually shifted to the Lyn Engine [...] We're using an internal engine that we call Lyn [...] Using the LyN engine, [...]

The latter three clearly are only trivial mentions that say that the engine was used (as I stated previously), and the first one also fails to go into detail with the topic. As the guideline's #3 puts it:

There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.

There are not multiple sources that go beyond half-a-sentence. If an article, with all available sources in place, cannot expand beyond a few introductory sentences and a bulleted list, it is, at best, a WP:DIRECTORY, which is also against Wikipedia guidelines. Lordtobi (✉) 11:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons above. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a sentence mentioning the engine and its games to Ubisoft Montpellier, the folks who created it. The sources already in the article show a modest amount of verifiable information on the topic--who made it and which of their games use it. Per our policy WP:ATD of preserving verifiable content, selectively merging verifiable content is preferable to deletion. Hence, a selective merge of a sentence (what I consider due weight) to Ubisoft Montpellier is recommended. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Mark viking, out of curiosity, would you consider Rabbids Go Home, the game the engine was developed for, as an alternative merge target? Lordtobi (✉) 19:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Rabbids Go Home also seems like a reasonable target, as long as the other games developed with LyN could also be mentioned. I am less concerned with the target article--subject experts on video game development have a better feel for this than I--as long as the information is preserved. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a general preference, where the engine is used by multiple systems, to target the creators rather than one of the systems. Slightly less surprising. --Izno (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTPAPER. As the content involved is pretty small, we could perfectly easily merge it to both. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, in this case. If it were more substantially sourced, only one, but as it is not.... That leaves yet the target for the redirect (which might also be Lyn as a possible typo). --Izno (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because all of the sourcing is trivial passing mentions, and there’s virtually no content to even merge. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Ubisoft Montpellier. Just a one-sentence mention, per Mark viking, then redirect. No objection to Rabbids Go Home as an alternative merge target. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2019 (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.