Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashPunk


 * 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. v/r - TP 16:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

FlashPunk

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Declined prod. Doesn't seem to be notable, no reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. SudoGhost 02:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I don't understand why you guys are deleting FlashPunk, but not Flixel. They're very similar products, and their pages are nearly identical, with the FlashPunk page having more content than the Flixel page. The FlashPunk and Flixel 3rd party references are nearly identical, too:
 * Delete per WP:N. I could not find any reliable sources referencing the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

FP:

Official website

FlashPunk wiki at FlashGameDojo.com

Source on GitHub

Interview about FlashPunk at DigitalTools

Flixel:

Official website

Flixel wiki at FlashGameDojo.com

Source on GitHub

Official Flixel wiki on GitHub

Interview about Flixel v1.1 at DigitalTools.com

Only difference is Flixel's wiki is uploaded to. I could add FP's wiki if I wanted to, but I don't see how that's a 3rd-party reference as both wiki's are created by the library creators. What makes Flixel's article more notable than FP's? Bretboy129 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD isn't addressing any other article, that other stuff exists is not addressing why this article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. - SudoGhost 03:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep: The article is noteworthy as a freeware, open-source program available on the Internet. The Flashpunk website has a forum with thousands of posts on it, which is noteworthy as to the significance the application. The article is also noteworthy as an encyclopedic reference regarding the availability of freeware and open source programs, and how the Internet continues to evolve. Furthermore, the Flixel article is a notable comparison, because both platforms are very similar, and the "Other Stuff Exists" webpage is an essay, not official Wikipedia policy. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Also a Google search returns numerous websites regarding Flashpunk, which correlates with the subject's overall notability; click here for Google search results. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is being nominated for deletion for failing to meet the WP:N guideline. WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which are not policy but are meant to explain to you why your support to keep the article is incorrectly stated per WP:N. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your keep argument fails to demonstrate why the article is notable, simply because it is a freeware open-source program is not sufficient. The Google search return is useless as a keep argument, as none of the results are reliable, third-party sources, most are random blogs.  As for the other stuff exists essay, ignoring it would be valid if the article was proven to be notable, but that is not the case. - SudoGhost 20:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. One interview does not notability make. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: - This application will likely never receive significant press in mass media. Go ahead and delete the article then, along with most other freeware software articles. Refer to List of freeware video games for a starting point to begin an en masse deletion. Continue, and delete all articles about open source software too that are ignored in mass media. What will be left in Wikipedia is software produced only by corporations, and articles will be based upon corporate lobbyists influencing mass media to report about their latest innovations. For examples, refer to: iPod, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Hewlett-Packard, Adobe Systems and many others that have significant advertising budgets for national and international advertising campaigns. The rest will fail WP:GNG because they're not available in Google news. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By that argument, we should allow garage bands to have articles, simply because they're garage bands. Why should bands that have advertising or labels be the only bands that are allowed to have articles?


 * Articles about open-source software exist that satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines, such as Warsow (video game), GIMP, Arch Linux, and many, many others. None of these are produced by corporations with "lobbyists influencing mass media", nor do they have significant (or any) advertising budgets.  In fact, none of these examples are produced by corporations at all.  We cannot give exceptions to Wikipedia's notability guidelines simply because the software is free.  I'm all about open source software and the freedom of information, but that's exactly why Wikipedia's notability guidelines are so important, because if every piece of open source software or freeware was allowed an article simply because of that criteria, it would dilute the encyclopedia into a repository of crap software, and that's not what Wikipedia is. - SudoGhost 12:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: - Refer to the discussion page of the FlashPunk article here for more information. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: - Go ahead and delete the article then, along with most other freeware software articles. Refer to List of freeware video games for a starting point to begin an en masse deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You said the same thing above, and SudoGhost has already responded to it. Simply repeating it doesn't accomplish anything. Lady  of  Shalott  12:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.