Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phaser (game framework)

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 no consensus. There is no consensus to delete this article, defaulting to keep. Nakon 04:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phaser (game framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy general notability or product notability. The sources are nearly all primary, either the developer's web site or vanity sources or press releases.

Merging to the developer's article would be an option if the developer had an article, but the developer doesn't, presumably because they don't meet corporate notability.

Two previous editors have questioned notability. A deletion discussion is better than just move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a deletion discussion is better than a move-warring (which is of course very irritating and nobody wants!). As for the article, I'm quite surprised about it not meeting the requirements. We are talking about a pretty successful piece of software that is used in many games, has a big active community and has a long history of development (more than 4 years). Many sources are primary, yes, as they contain the most detailed description of several aspects, but there are also non-primary ones. Actually I wonder which kind of sources would one expect for a successful piece of software... an article in Ars Technica? I took the time to write (what I think is) a sensible draft so that Wikipedia covers something that I honestly think it should. I understand it being marked as a draft (as I myself did), and requesting it to be more complete, but "candidate for deletion"? That seems a stretch to me. (Not to mention directly removing it -- that I cannot agree at all :) ).

Finally, I'd like to differentiate what are "recommended practices" (and by whom) from what are official Wikipedia policies. I think deleting something is irritating enough so as not to take it lightly, and certainly not in a speedy way if not directly against official policies. Hopefully we all agree on that? :) --jbc (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete 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 WP:RS, but the bar would still have to be high, and even the blog sources for this seem to be relatively minor.SeraphWiki (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete No leniency should be given to any software out there. Open source doesn't mean no money gets exchanged, many companies release open-source software as a method of advertising, which is quite obviously the case here. Its more than generous wording along with it sourcing almost entirely on its own site, this falls dramatically short of inclusion. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep - I found a few things, whilst not my area, I know this framework is used on a lot of games on Android. See [1],[2],[3], [4] Whether or not any of these are considered reliable sources is up to those who know more about programming. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• strong-ish keep - (Is this a voting thing? :) ) I agree with SeraphWiki in having some standard of notability, and whereas the fine line of where it is is hard to decide, I think we are playing safe here: Phaser is quite a notable thing in many metrics (sheer number of people using it for a start). The references given by Lee Vilenski are quite a good reflection of it, imho (not only but especially the mozilla development site and book published by crc press). As for the "obviously as a method of advertising", well, let's not be paranoid :) I wrote the article (a draft) and I have no connection whatsoever with the guys who developed Phaser, I'm just a user and was shockingly surprised that there was no Wikipedia entry for such an obvious (imho) article, so I started writing one. Finally, seriously, deleting is not to be taken lightly, I do hope that you see how insulting that can sound (to the criteria of the editor). --jbc (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 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 WP:Articles 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.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2018 (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.