Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn 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 merge to Eidos-Montréal. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Dawn Engine

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable game engine. One source is a press relief. Of the remaining sources, one doesn't directly mention the engine at all, and the rest are one sentence name drops. This is a proprietary engine with little coverage, none of it significant and indepth. -- ferret (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * More sources were added after I opened this AFD, but none are an improvement. More primary sources, more single sentence mentions, and another source that makes no direct mention of the engine at all. Almost all coverage is in relation to passing mentions in sources about the two games that used it. -- ferret (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I replaced the press release with a third party source. The other primary source is a technical presentation from Game Developers Conference. Merko (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Seemingly non-notable, and abandoned game engine. I would have said merge to Glacier (game engine) but that appears non-notable as well. The only SIGCOV noted in the article is this article and various other stuff are merely based on interviews, i.e. primary-sourced. I would definitely ask to see the WP:THREE best sources that prove the article is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Zxcvbnm WP:THREE: [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] Merko (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've said, the MCV piece reads as a cross between a promotional release and an interview. The OXM source is also an interview. with a generic Staff byline. The third source barely mentions the engine, talking mostly about TressFX with big quote blocks from a primary source. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In any event, I'd also be fine with a merge or redirect to Eidos Montreal as stated below. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Eidos Montreal. While the coverage is mostly routine in nature, MCVUK provided significant coverage, and the OXM article is an interview that has many crucial information about the development of the engine. I don't think we should outright delete all the information here. OceanHok (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @OceanHok I actually suspect the MCV article may be a press release or interview. I'm slightly concerned that the byline is simply "Staff", and most of it is direct quotes from Eidos Montreal. Coupled with the wording of the very last paragraph is what makes it feel like a promotional piece rather than an independent article. That said, doesn't mean the merge would be inappropriate. -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that the sources I provided while creating the article demonstrate significant coverage and prove that this game engine is notable enough to warrant its own article. Merko (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note this is the article creator. Sergecross73   msg me  12:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mentioned it above already. Merko (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge - I can see the sourcing to write a small blurb at the parent article, but not enough to meet the GNG or warrant a spin-out. Sergecross73   msg me  12:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, though I wouldn't be heartbroken by a merge, either. It's only used in two games (two-and-a-half?), but they were fairly major titles. The article isn't huge, but it looks pretty well-sourced and doesn't appear to have any major issues. I'd be afraid that detail would be lost if it were merged to the Eidos-Montréal (parent company) article, which honestly isn't much larger than this article. Interestingly, I note that Eidos-Montréal doesn't mention or link to this article at all, which should probably be addressed whatever the outcome here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @TenOfAllTrades The problem isn't detail or content, but the fact that nearly all of the sourcing is primary and interviews. There is no single source that is clearly independent and sigcov, and GNG isn't met as a result. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge to Eidos Montreal per OceanHok's rationale. In my own search I was not able to find many sources that were not either primary sources or only mentioning the engine in the context of publicizing the games that used it, which leads me to believe that it is only notable in the context of those two games and their creators. The information should be appropriately incorporated into the pages covering those topics (like under the "Development" section of the page for Deus Ex: Mankind Divided for instance, where it is already covered in about as much if not more detail than this page), but the engine is not in and of itself notable, and to most Wikipedia readers will only be of interest in the context of the games developed with it. It is therefore, in my opinion, better off with WP:NOPAGE. Joyce-stick (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Merging to the company responsible for development would be the outcome most consistent with the precedent at Articles for deletion/Glacier (game engine). &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Eidos Montreal per . In the absence of substantial use of the engine by other game developers, I don't see much reason for departing from the precedent noted above. My only reservation about the merge is that the game engines documented by these two AfDed articles share a development history, suggesting a case for a common article, but we appear to lack the sources to write this article. I would support creation of an independent article if adequate sourcing were to come to light. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2022 (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.