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. No sources have been found, no objection to re-creation once sources are found. TravellingCari 18:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algoryx Simulation[edit]

Algoryx Simulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nonnotable company, doesn't seem to have been acknowledged by reliable independent sources. Also nominating its products AgX Multi Physics and Phun 2D Physics Sandbox. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously all other Physics engines on the planet, and their makers, do have an entry in wikipedia, so this proposed deletion would not be consistent with the overall policy of this topic, unless a total deletion of it planned..

Here's a reference for you:

Phun was shown in the Intel Developer Forum opening forum keynote speech on Aug 19 2008, by Intel corporation chairman of the board, and Algoryx was also referenced. The opening forum keynote was by Intel chairman of the board Craig R. Barrett, and the theme was "Inspiring Innovation". The keynote webcast is available from Intel's IDF pages, and an excerpt is also found at Youtube. Other software displayed was e.g. Google earth, Microsoft Virtual Earth, Photosynth.

I am honest about placing these things in wikipedia, and could certainly have done it under the name Donald Duck, or whatever, but I didn't want to do that, since I have the deepest respect respect for wikipedias integrity, and I have done my best to be neutral. While the entries certainly can be improved, I would appreciate getting concrete constructive criticism for them, rather than deletion which I honestly believe is very unfair. Kenbon (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find no coverage to establish notability in the 140 or so unique GHits. If someone can find that coverage and add it to the articles I will reconsider. Nuttah (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, could you explain which search leads to 140 GHits. We're talking about three different wikipedia entries, I would appreciate if you explained which one gives 140 and with what search term.Kenbon (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• One should not even judge the notability of an article through Google. The Conundrumer^T_C 13:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no third party sources cited in the articles. No suggestion that the topics are notable in any of the articles. Being mentioned at the Intel Developer Forum is a good start, but that's still only one third party source. The existance of many other articles on physics engines is a sign that there are other deletable articles out there, not a sign that this one should be kept. GDallimore (Talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources. We66er (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2008 (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.