Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenRL

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. Sandstein 07:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRL[edit]

[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)

This appears to be a rather promotion page created several years ago in 2013. GDallimore submitted it for a WP:PROD, but it was reversed by the article's creator.
I'm surprised no one has noticed this article before, but I am nominating it now because it does not meet WP:GNG. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A Google Scholar search for 'OpenRL ray tracing' reveals some substantial independent coverage of the technology. I'm inclined to think it falls below our notability threshold, though, and as it stands the article is not OK. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - I'm the author ad have discussed the pending deletion with the original software authors of OpenRL. While OpenRL does have a seed role in later real-time ray tracing technologies like DirectX raytracing, we're fine with retiring this page in 2021. — Kevin Bjorke (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2021 (PDT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons you listed. Reads like an ad; it's even got the ™ there too, just to let you know that it's one. AdoTang (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nom, not enough significant coverage available yet. Citterz (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2021 (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.