Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RE 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. czar 21:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE 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)

Engine does not show independent notability. All sources/mentions of it are simply "this game will be using the RE Engine". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to talk about yet. Popcornduff (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I’ll never understand people’s tendency to spin out game engine articles like this. There’s nothing to be said here that wouldn’t be better suited as a sentence in the articles for the respective games articles. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator here. Your opinion is legitimate, but there is no "tendency" in the moves I made. The article was created with the intention of making it a stub (for which a specific "Capcom stub" template exist) so that other users - me included - would improve its quality over time. At the basis, of course, I thought the game engine was perfectly notable to have an article so I created it. And that's all. Lone Internaut (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, but this engine fails WP:N and thus no article should have been created for it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What can I tell? That's not what I thought. Lone Internaut (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lone Internaut: As soon as there's stuff to write about, we can recreate the article and add it. There's no rush. Popcornduff (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popcornduff, I think you are absolutely right about that. It's always a matter of time. Like the fact that now the article is on Wikidata and that, as I originally thought, other users are contributing to improve it. I am still sure this does not change much, but it's still better than nothing. And as you said there is no rush so... it's always a matter of time. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I said “tendency”, I didn’t mean Lone Internaut specifically, but rather, the tendency of editors in a general sense do it. I wasn’t attempting to single you out. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure about that, but being article creator I felt like to distance me from that "tendency" and give you background about the whole thing. Just saying. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Redirect to Resident Evil 7#Development. I can imagine the engine becoming notable in the future, but as of now all the coverage I know of is mostly tied to its use in that game. Smells like a case of WP:NOTINHERITED JOE BRO 64 23:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. TheDeviantPro (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Reads like an ad for Capcom rather than anything of encyclopaedic value. Fans of video games often create articles in the manner of shrines. -The Gnome (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2019 (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.