Deletion of Red Eclipse

Comment: There's not enough third party coverage to meet the . There's a couple usable sources in all of this, but they're just short articles that are brief product announcements, not significant coverage. A vast majority of the sources cited just don't meet  - they're obscure blogs and -violating material. It's a clear case of  with the sources and  with all these bogus !votes. (I've seen "overzealous deletion" cited more in this discussion in the last 48 hours than in my entire 7 years on Wikipedia - that's about as clear cut as it gets when it comes to misguided collaboration off-wiki
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:USERG||WP:BOMBARD||WP:SPA)

Comment: as a  failure
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Please refrain from repeating !votes.  I can see what you would like to do is have a consensus to |ignore the rules.  I don't agree with that in this circumstance as I feel the topic is not encyclopaedic
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IGNORE)

Comment: Not enough coverage in |independent, |reliable sources to |verify or |sustian article. Fails |Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and . Blogs, wikis and product announcements just are not sufficient. The canvassing and meat puppetry by someone saying they are the developer also leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Anyone who thinks they need to canvass for support for keep votes, even worse off-wiki canvassing, rather than simply provide the sources necessary to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, seems to me to be trying to get free advertising and recognition out of Wikipedia when they can not get coverage in their own industry. Utterly shameful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IS||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NRV||WP:GNG||WP:NGAME)