Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unity (game engine)

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The result was nomination withdrawn per notability arguments. Tan | 39 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unity (game engine)

Unsourced and non-notable. Promotional in nature. Tan | 39 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In its current state (as of this writing), the article reads like marketing collateral and is in need of proper referencing. But a casual Google search turns up plenty of coverage in Macworld and PC World (the key media outlets for this type of product): [1]. If anything, the article needs to be rewritten, not erased. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem with text right now is the lack of citations. That can be rewritten. For non-notable part, I'm not sure how to evaluate that... Google for "unity game engine" perhaps? [2]. NeARAZ (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability depends on perspective. There are probably thousands of articles on Wikipedia for things that I don't think are notable, but that someone with more knowledge on the area understands are critical. I would guess that since this was put in "websites or the Internet" articles for deletion, this is probably the case here. Also, since no competing product offers more/different content and none of them were tagged for deletion, this seems like maybe not enough research was done? As previously mentioned, Google clears this up quite well with media coverage in the appropriate places. As for the marketing-ish content and lack of sources, the policy indicates that it should result in a rewrite, not a delete. Charleshinshaw (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (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.