Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Engine Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spring_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. Discussion over sourcing shows consensus that only a single source exists with sigcov, thus not satisfying the GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Engine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Previous AfD in 2010 was not very convincing, with a lot of trivial coverage thrown around. Notability is not inherited, so a game engine is not notable because the games it was used in are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources. JTZegers (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article currently includes one piece of significant coverage: review in a print magazine fr:Linux Pratique. The previous AfD provided a link to Google Scholar search, the first two results are significant coverage: research papers about Total Annihilation: Spring (previous name of the engine): [1], [2]. Those three pieces of SIGCOV are enough for notability. If this discussion still determines the article to be deleted, I think the alternative to deletion is to merge the article to Total Annihilation#Engine remakes. --Mika1h (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the engine would be off-topic to mention in the Total Annihilation article itself, it's practically advertising as it only cites its own page. With regards to the research papers, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not passed as they do not show how it is significant to the general reader. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't quite follow how WP:INDISCRIMINATE is related to notability. The papers show that the game is used in the field of research of artificial intelligence in video games. It's up to the editor(s) of the article to present that information palatable to the general reader. --Mika1h (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mika1h If researchers use HB pencils and A4 paper to do an experiment that doesn't make the paper about the experiment a good source for showing the notability of HB pencils and A4 paper. I don't think either of those research papers talks about the engine enough for notability. The french article is great though! Moritoriko (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming through this forum thread, even a redirect to the Engine remakes section could be confusing. IgelRM (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is a borderline topic for sure but the kind of borderline that is basically harmless. The Linux Pratique article looks useful here. There's at least some mild secondary coverage. SnowFire (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, harmless if say Linux-centric notability is good enough for WP. IgelRM (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing this as notable. Sourcing is poor and not enough for a stand alone article. Not even mnntioned in Game engine. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how being mentioned in Game engine article is any indication of notability, a lot of engines that have articles aren't mentioned there, see List of game engines. --Mika1h (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sourcing of the current article is heavily promotional as is the tone of the text. If another solid source like the french article can be found then I will change my vote but I already explained why I don't view the two research papers as convincing. Moritoriko (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2025 (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.