Talk:Mark Overmars

message: Should the Game Maker Community attack be mentioned in this article? It regards the forum of the Game Maker community more than Overmars himself. Goofyman 21:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Maker Community attack 

message: This page should be modified to reflect that Mark Overmars joined up with YoYo Games in the development of GameMaker. The GameMaker website (referenced at the bottom) now redirects to www.yoyogames.com, so you may want to update that link. -IsmAvatar
:This move is described in some detail in the Game Maker article. I don't see that it needs more text in Overmars' article as well, since that links to Game Maker. But I have changed the link itself as you suggest, especially since the redirect from the old site doesn't quite go to the right place. —David Eppstein 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GameMaker merge with YoYo Games 

message: Just for the record, GM has helped many amature game designers such as myself to reach their full potential at a very young age. I have been using it since I was 15, and this program has helped me to learn the basics. Mark Overmars has my respect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratstail91 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been using it since i was nine. I'm now at the level of a little over "Decently-A-Pro" 64.136.27.231 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice, but this is not a forum. IsmAvatar (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: footnote

message: The article contains only 1 citation that was able to be verified, also failing to establish WP:Notability and is criteria for speedy deletion per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7._No_indication_of_importance_.28individuals.2C_animals.2C_organizations.2C_web_content.2C_events.29 BlitzGreg (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have undone your changes. I can't find any good faith reason for your removal of paper publications as being "dead links", and Overmars overwhelmingly passes WP:PROF#C1 as shown by his citation record in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but I have to disagree as per the exact criteria you linked. "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1.", Google book inventory alone is not sufficient coverage of notability nor does it meet a "wide array" as per the criteria. Also, you may check for yourself both of the citations are restricted and inaccessible, the book publication I did not realize was ok, however the other two are completely unreliable sources. BlitzGreg (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also their is a link rot since May of 2010 on the last citation as well, the one I assume you are saying is a book citation, because I did not remove any of the books cited directly above the normal references. BlitzGreg (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Re WP:PROF: As you say, the number of publications is not relevant. What is relevant is the number of citations. Three publications with over 100 citations each would be a good record, most likely enough to pass that criterion. In Overmars' case there are three publications with over 2000 each. That is to say, each of these three publications has over 2000 reliable sources that mention it, with very likely a good number of nontrivial mentions among them. If you're not clear about what this means you should not be proposing deletion of articles about academics. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the one who says that, the Wikipedia policy does, I can't help but feel that specific piece of the policy was written specifically for cases like this. Google books alone does not provide the "wide array" of sources required, because Google books itself is only one reliable source itself, there are many citations yes but it is all only one source of the information. If articles could exist purely on the grounds of bringing up many Google results, well, I think Wikipedia would be in some pretty big trouble with finding big enough servers. Also the web citations that I removed you can test yourself that they are inaccessible which makes them unreliable.
* http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/markov/
* http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/html/id.phtml?id=66080
* http://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/
* http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/collaborationDistance.html?group_source=134845
* http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~overm101/curric.pdf
Every single one of them is a dead link, to quote the citation itself from the article "[dead link]" These should definitely be removed and I did attempt to update the link to his official site which is gamemaker.nl for The Gamemaker Company which he published Super Snake HD through. BlitzGreg (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Go to the Google scholar listing for Mark Overmars. Look at the little numbers below each listing: "Cited by 3853", "Cited by 2554", etc. Click on them. Each of them will take you to another search result page with literally thousands of reliable references about Overmars' works. As for the dead links: that is not a deletion rationale. The math genealogy link still exists at another site (easily found using Google, or use the  template. The ams link is not dead (but is as it has always been limited to subscribers). And anyway, having sources that are still online is not in any way a deletion rationale. Basically, it seems like you're picking at stupid and minor flaws with the sourcing as an excuse to try to get the article deleted rather than taking even the most minimal effort to clean it up. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Deletion 

message: Substituted at 23:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Mark Overmars also created fps6.gmk, which is a DOOM style project. Here's the link https://www.indiedb.com/games/fps6gmk LakerMakerBaker606 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fun fact