Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evoke engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} delete --Salix alba (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evoke engine

Evoke engine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable software, no claims of notability. Corvus cornixtalk 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This engine is a work in progress and the article is going to reveal more information about it as it devolops. The article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclectus (talk • contribs) — Eclectus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete as a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not only by WP:CRYSTAL per Hersford, but as a borderline ad. JFlav (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; lacks context and references necessary to establish WP:Notability. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Above and beyond the fact that it is WP:CRYSTAL, once created, it still won't satisfy WP:N as it will be one among many of it's kind.--Pmedema (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL (as mentioned by Hersfold). --On the other side Contribs|@ 04:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to exist as a released product, and no information is available other than the author's web page and blog. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL ! The Evoke Engine does exist as proven by the screenshot that I've added to the page, and the sourcecode is going to be released into the public Domain. I'm doing this because I feel that other programmers may benefit from it, and modify it. Neither is it a violation of ad as this is an Open Source engine that I am making available for the benifit of the video gaming community. If you can you should give me advice on how to save this article from deletion, it's a valued part of the Wikipedia! It will continue to grow and improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclectus (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note Disclosure per afd etiquette: User:Eclectus is the primary editor/originator of Evoke engine. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - my advice for you is to read notability guidelines to have an article in Wikipedia and then continue to what Wikipedia is not. If you can show that the subject is notable enough, and that is easily done by providing independent and reliable secondary sources for instances full coverage reviews about the subject, then the article stays. It's very simple. My observation to the subject at the moment is that it is far away from being notable, because you just created it. Perhaps Wikipedia is not the correct media to promote your new product. You can get a free blog for example to do that. Dekisugi (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      Comment - If there was a public location where the source was being hosted (say source forge) and there was an existing comunity of people working on and using the engine (beyond yourself) and the article had been created / edited by someone other than yourself and the article only included information about what the engine currently does, not what it might do in the future, then you would have a solid argument for the article not being removed. KalevTait (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that this article should be given more time to grow, before being considered for deletion. What is there so far looks promising.213.199.128.148 (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Why should it be given time to grow? It is currently not notable. Based on the remarks by the editor of this article, I also have concerns about WP:Conflict of interest; this article may be promoting a product created by that user; if so, regardless if profit is gained from the product or not, it may still be WP:Spam as it seems to exist for the sake of promoting something. Note that editor indicates that the "sourcecode is going to be released into the public Domain. . ." which indicates that it is indeed WP:Crystal--Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note For disclosure, Eclectus, the author of Evoke engine, has been leaving messages on user pages, possibly canvassing. See his/her user talk page for discussion. JFlav (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note It seems that he is new to Wkipedia and doesn't quite understand how things work here; I've explained the policy to him. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2008 (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.