Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder2D


 * 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. North America1000 16:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thunder2D

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for non-notable product. No coverage in reliable sources at all. Previously speedied twice as G11 and recently prodded for the same reason. I am bringing this here to establish a clear precedent regarding the article, which I believe should be deleted and possibly salted. Thparkth (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable software, fails WP:GNG. Like nom pointed, speedy deleted twice already. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. (The PROD would have been enough...) Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ping me. czar  14:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Source are not that unreable, some games including Seaquest Remake have been using this engine. The engine is on the commercial status. If there is any problem help cleanup instead of deleting. Ash.Taheri  20:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Ash.Taheri (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  14:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. None of the four sources are what Wikipedia defines as reliable, and even beyond that, 3 out of four wouldn't constitute "significant coverage" anyways. (That's being generous, it could be argued none of the 4 are significant coverage too, if it mattered.) Sergecross73   msg me  01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 12:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. No significant coverage by reliable sources.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing suggesting better for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  04:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per all the above.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:57, 3 May 2016 (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.