Deletion of Phaser (game framework)

Comment: I think we can be more lenient with free software relative to commercial software, but there still have to be some independent, secondary sources for notability (otherwise every project on github could have an independent article - we still need some standard for notability). I can't find any sources for this subject, outside blogs, and the only blogs we allow are news blogs subject to editorial control. I think there is room for improvement here - ''Linux Kernel Monkey Log'' should definitely be considered a , but the bar would still have to be high, and even the blog sources for this seem to be relatively minor
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I don't much about the subject area, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage apart from primary sources. I looked over the sources Lee Vilenski found, but in all four cases I have doubts about the significance of either the source or the coverage. JBC - Both here and in the edit summaries, you keep using the argument that no one should propose an article be deleted because it hurts the feelings of the editor who created the article. That's not a valid argument; frankly, if you are oversensitive enough to take it personally whenever a WP article you created is being considered for deletion, that's your problem, and would probably be better solved by using the rticles for creation process. It's obviously a lot slower than just creating an article yourself, but the emotional investment is less if it doesn't meet notability standards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)