FaceGen: No sustained significant in-depth coverage can be found at all.  In direct relation to video game, WP:VG/S 's custom search of reliable sources has two (2) hits, one of which is a press release that an unrelated game engine included this software in a new release, and the other is a copyright notice.  Google searches, such as the news search, for "FaceGen" (quotations required because "face gen" refers to a common technical term) has only five total results...  Only one of which actually mentioned the software, only in passing as explaining "this image was made with FaceGen".  The rest are false hits.  The researchgate link in the article goes to a paper that does mention the software, but not as a subject of coverage.  It is a tool they use in the course of discussing face modelling in general, and almost more of a "how to".  Tagged unreferenced since 2009.  -- ferret ( talk ) 20:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing . -- ferret ( talk ) 20:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral I made this article way back in 2006.   I see on the talk page that in 2009 I complained that the interview that gave it significant coverage at Discovery Channel's Daily Planet (TV series) no longer worked.  Talk:FaceGen#Interview_no_longer_where_it_was.  There was coverage way back then and big name game studios were using it for their notable games.   But whatever, doesn't really matter nowadays, there so many competitors, and most games have their own systems they make themselves.  D r e a m Focus 21:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That software is outmoded shouldn't affect its notability, so long as coverage is available.  I'll take a look and see if I can find some older sources.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 02:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hmm, well, it's not self-evidently not notable, at least.  The software has had good coverage in Game Developer including an in-depth review [38] and descriptions of various versions [39] [40] [41] .  I'm yet to find any sourcing on it, but the software does have some fairly wide appearances in the credits of 00s video games, most notably being the  software used to create the infamous not-so lifelike faces in The Elder Scrolls III: Oblivion .  Still a long shot.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 21:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete Although usually those sources might be just enough, them being all from a single publication (Game Developer), puts it below notability for me.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 18:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - has in-depth coverage at https://www.proquest.com/docview/233640275/C062825AE2704010PQ/7 and https://www.proquest.com/docview/1789237253/C062825AE2704010PQ/9 , and sustained usage in scientific articles that can be found on Google Scholar.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Please can the sources be evaluated.  If you are asserting scientific cover you need to provide the sources or they won't be considered in the close.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Spartaz Humbug!  05:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (bordering on weak keep) – Although there's a seeming lack of meaty coverage in "news", the sources above do demonstrate that there probably enough sigcov in RS'es to satisfy the inclusion threshold.  The four articles (including one real deep one) in Game Developper Magazine (linked by ＶＲＸＣＥＳ) and the scientific papers linked by Indefensible coupled with supplemental coverage listed in GScholar, in sum total this makes me lean in the direction of keeping.  There is also an authored Softpedia review and several mentions of FaceGen that are more "passing mentions" in gamedev articles like https://www.animationmagazine.net/2023/07/delivering-the-facial-animation-for-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-ii/ and science papers like Spatial Heterogeneity in the Perception of Face and Form Attributes Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 13:22, 19 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus