Deletion of Spring project

Comment: I do not have the time to involve myself overmuch in Wiki politics, which is the primary force behind most, if not all, deletions and topic reviews. Nor will I make references to Wikipedia policy, as discussion of such, rather than action on the basis of such, is usually fruitless. The article itself is poor, being a hold-over from a Wikipedia long past and I am now rewriting it to both serve the project and Wikipedia better. This will take some time, as I am busy with professional life - but the primary change you should be aware of is that, since Spring is not a game, but an engine, it will be listed as such. It will meet notability guidelines, as will any of the specific game articles which I choose write thereafter. However, I must note a fundamental problem with the |notability guidelines in regard to open source software - notability as shown on Wikipedia is established through academic articles, reviews, and pop-culture references; without the support of commercial advertising and a commercial advertising budget, these seldom appear - when they do, in the case of various Linux distributions and alternatives to commercial software, this is due to a dedicated group of people willing to invest copious amounts of their own resources in advertisement. We cannot cite the number of people who use the software, that is not grounds for |notability, nor are the novel features of the engine. We do not have the money to pay people to review or use our software, and if we did, those people would still need to meet the subjective standards of independent, reliable, published. Luckily, this will not be a problem, since it is used enough academically by virtue of functionality and quality
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: I can't find any evidence of |notability for this video game. A http://www.mobygames.com/search/quick?q=Total+Annihilation%3A+Spring search of MobyGames didn't turn up anything for this game in the way of reviews. Content-wise, the article contains a good deal of content inappropriate for an encyclopedia article (see 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:VGSCOPE)

Comment: As persuasive as a tidal wave of , ,  and  arguments may sound, the subject still needs to receive ''significant coverage in |reliable secondary sources'' in order to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Regretfully, I wasn't able to find such sources myself and I don't see anything concrete in the discussion above. Perhaps I really did miss something after all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IKNOWIT||WP:BIG||WP:LOTSOFSOURCES||WP:RS)