Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightfeather 3D 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Lightfeather 3D Engine]]=

:{{la|Lightfeather 3D Engine}} ([{{fullurl:Lightfeather 3D Engine|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightfeather 3D Engine}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Article does not explain how this software is notable (WP:N), or provide any citations from reliable, independent sources (WP:V). Prod contested by anonymous user without comment and no effort to address these issues. Marasmusine (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. No assertion of notability, no third-party reliable sources. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • dont mind in my opinion there are some reasons for inclusion and some against. when it comes to notability, how do you decide whats notable and not and for what reasons. i think general rules can't apply to everything.

for example imo the notability of Lightfeather is through its technical "merits" (performance, features, design etc) which imo can't/shouldn't be explained in a wikipedia article. also, if you take a look at the lists of open source projects on wikipedia, you would probably have to remove 95% for notability reasons since theres always only one or two "big" ones in each category and the others are rather small projects. so where/how do you draw the line ? full disclosure: i am one of the authors of lightfeather User:mm765 —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC).

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.