 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Notability??? edit
"The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion."
Please tell me this is some inside 'joke' here at Wikipedia? :-/
GROME is DEFINITELY worthy of an article. There are fully featured articles about things that are far less notable/important than GROME. Though that's not necessarily a 'valid excuse', I find it downright silly that this is even an issue. People who work outside the industry probably haven't heard of it, since they don't encounter professional development software/middleware in their everyday lives. However, GROME is very well known in the industry. By 'the industry', I mean the game/simulation development industry, as well as the movie/short film industries. It is used by some of the biggest development corporations (like Ubisoft), down to the smaller/independent teams/corporations (like my own, for now). Though it's my personal opinion, GROME is easily one of the best (if not THE best) terrain/world modeling/creation tools in existence; especially in the sphere of commercial availability. Yes, I admitted that part is my opinion (as well as that of many others), but that doesn't detract at all from the aforementioned points.
The article does appear outdated, and in need of some tidying up and updates. I will mention this to Quad and other users who may want to contribute to the article; with, of course, the understanding that their writing must be impartial and unbiased. But I think that 'notability' tag needs to come down right away. Totally uncalled for and unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.35 (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)