Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Game 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 everything. No assertion of notability backed by reliable sources. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix Game Engine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * Note that this has recently been moved to PhoenixLayer --barneca (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * added half a day later

In the course of investigating a db-copyvio tag, I discovered that it really doesn't matter if there's a copyright violation here or not; I don't think Phoenix Game Engine meets WP:NOTE. Can't find any independent sources. This may or may not be applicable, but read the talk page; it appears someone is claiming that the subject of the article (not the text) is actually an illegal copy of their own software. I only bring this up so sources for the two apparently different engines aren't confused; I'm not making any judgement on the validity of that claim. barneca (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm a little green when it comes to AfD's. It appears that the competing Engine is described at Phoenix Engine, and I'm having similar problems finding clear independent sources for this.  Can I include this article in the AfD as well, or does it need a separate one? --barneca (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say include it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Related, but different, article now included. Same rationale as the first; no independent reliable sources, and I think it fails WP:NOTE. --barneca (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Another article has popped up at Phoenix Engine.  Can we confirm that these articles are about the same subject and should Phoenix Engine therefore be a part of this AfD? Enviroboy TalkCs 02:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understand the person posting at Talk:Phoenix Game Engine correctly, his claim is that these are separate, and that PGE is a copyright-infringing version of PE. I have no idea if this is true or not.  Per my comment above, I don't think this article meets WP:NOTE either, but was unclear whether to include it in this particular AfD, or create a new one. --barneca (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As the creator of the initial engine, I believe you should be directed to these links, all containing information of the Phoenix Engine: ,,. PGE is NOT PE, it is a ripped copy. From the dates of the posts and development screenshots and code posted on both forums, you can see that this engine has been under development for about a year. It was only recently that I noticed this knock-off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerp9p (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Both: Sources are given for neither, they are both "under development," and in truth, a Speedy under A7 would be appropriate for both -- no assertion of notability is made. I'd almost suggest WP:CRYSTAL too, if either article asserted much in the way of future importance, which neither does.    RGTraynor  13:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Both Per RGTraynor Almogo (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both per RGTraynor. -- JulesN   Talk  20:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete both, no notability established for this future product. --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make 2 points here. First off, Phoenix Game Engine is not a copy of Phoenix Engine. Though the Phoenix Engine project in it's entirety is older, the current C/C++'s page is older than my current release. This, of course, is why I chose the name. It APPEARED to not be taken. Currently, Phoenix Game Engine is not under heavy development, due to the fact I am currently under a large workload. Bottom line is, there is no copyright violations. While I don't appreciate that my project is being attacked as a copy, a fake, a fraud, etc., the proof is in these simple facts: - Phoenix Engine is a game engine layer for the Leadwerks Engine. Phoenix Game Engine is a simplification layer, targeted for games, for the Irrlicht 3D engine. As of Irrlicht 1.5, most of the code for older versions, notably the one from a year ago, is highly incompatible, thus a copy would turn into completely new code anyway. - Phoenix Engine supports C, C++, and .NET Phoenix Game Engine supports only C++, and possibly .NET in the future. - As mentioned above, the current Phoenix Engine page was created after the Phoenix Game Engine.

Looking at this, it would appear that Phoenix Engine was more likely for the copyright infringement, but all the same, there was none. Both projects need to be removed from the AfD, and I need to converse with the developers of the Phoenix Engine, and we an come to terms on better naming one of our engines to make them unique. ThymeCypher (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The dispute, or lack of a dispute, between these two engines is not what is being discussed. Both appear not to have enough notability or reliable sources to warrant an article.  If either becomes more notable, or gets mentioned in reliable sources, an article can be recreated. --barneca (talk) 17:38, 27 April 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.