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} 23:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esenthel Engine[edit]

Esenthel Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Declined G11 (for blatant advertisement) with the reason that it is "definitely not spam" and "can be improved." I, however, disagree with that. Besides being only nominated by the 11th Annuel Independent Games Festival (it hasn't actually won an award in anything as of yet), I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can establish notability as shown in this cursory Google search here. I also believe that the article is basically advertising itself, which is shown by telling users how much using the engine costs as well as specifying in an advertorial tone the requirements and documentation of the engine (also failing Wikipedia is not your own web host, as the whole article is basically acting as a directory page of a video game engine). MuZemike 06:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 06:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it was a finalist (but not a winner) in the 2007 Intel Game Demo competition[1]. SharkD (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just as a note, I was the one who declined the speedy. I have nothing against deletion and was considering tagging it with a prod, but this article is certainly not blatant spam. There is no indication within the article that it is self-promotional, nor is it written like an arguement. However, I'm not sure of the notability (as I have not researched it), so AfD is also an appropriate venue. No hard feelings if deleted, eh? DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 12:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no independent references (WP:V), no assertion of notability (WP:N). Being the finalist in the Intel Game Demo competition helps support a claim of importance, but not on its own.
• Delete - Doesn't look like anyone has found any good sources. SharkD (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No verifiable and reliable sources or claim of notability. 16x9 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (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.