Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V-play (game engine)


 * 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   Incubate. Moved to Draft:V-play (game engine) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

V-play (game engine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. No reliable sources mention it on Google. Sources provided in the article are entirely primary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. A non-notable engine and I can't find any significant coverage other than primary sources, discussions or tutorials. It exists and games use it, but that's about it. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as covered by numerous independent secondary and tertiary sources. BlitzGreg (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you link them so we can discuss them? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * BlitzGreg, I searched and also found no reliable sources. Please post URLs that we can consider. ––Agyle (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to Draft:V-play (game engine) as WP:TOOSOON. There's no reason to hide to remove this content from view, as it doesn't contain COPYVIO nor BLP stuff, but the sources don't establish notability and are not particularly reliable. That could change in the future, as there is evidence that the engine is used by several independent third parties. Diego (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete- software article of unclear notability. of the provided references, most are developers' sites, incidental mentions, or blogs. The pocketgamer.biz link is the only substantial coverage, and they self-describe as 'an ideal environment to promote your business agenda via advertising and sponsored editorial.', so not RS. A search did not reveal additional RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What benefit do you expect from this content being hidden, accessible only to administrators? If it's preserved as a draft, somebody may be able to use it as a starting point to prove notability, or reuse its content elsewhere at any of the articles under Wikiproject free software. Diego (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Various arguments for and against preserving content found not sufficiently notable for inclusion are discussed at Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Briefly, I take a deletionist position with regard to extant or recent software articles, which are particularly prone to promotional use; there is no shortage of other internet sources of information on game making software. If you would like to discuss this further, we can do so on my talk page. Per the V-play article, V-play has a monthly billing pricing model, so I don't see how content from this article would be relevant to Wikiproject free software.Dialectric (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Qt and QML, on which V-play is based, are free software (that can be dual-licensed). What I was asking is the benefit you see in making the content of this particular article removed from view. Draft articles aren't part of the encyclopedia, and are not indexed nor followed by search engines, so they are less prone to promotional abuse. Diego (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Move to Draft:V-play (game engine). Not notable. I failed to find reliable sources among books and academic publications, and I don't consider any citations within the current Wikipedia article to be reliable sources (see WP:RS if you're wondering what this means). I did not do significant web search, and may have missed important magazine or other news references.
 * Diego Moya, turning the question above around, your approach of moving articles to draft rather than deleting seems unusual, and I wonder if you can point to any Wikipedia guidelines, essays, or discussions on the topic. I'm not suggesting it's bad, and given the ever-diminishing cost of data storage it sounds like it has merit, but I'd be curious to read other opinions.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "I don't consider any citations within the current Wikipedia article to be reliable sources" -- Pocket Gamer is reliable, see WP:VG/RS. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it is reliable. To clarify, the 'pocket gamer' listed on WP:VG/RS appears to be a different publication than the subject of the article - countries of publication, format (web vs print), publisher, and even focus (handheld vs. mobile) are all different. As I noted above,as a ref in the site used in the article we're discussing, pocketgamer.biz, has an explicitly promotion-oriented editorial policy, as does its parent company Steel Media. If opening a thread at WP:VG/RS to sort this out would help, I can do that.Dialectric (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I didn't realize you also meant the entire site is not an RS. .biz is Pocket Gamer's industry-oriented online counterpart. Same publisher -- Steel Media, it's focus is quote both "mobile and handheld", and it's country of publication is UK for both (although I'm not sure it matters on the Internet). The thing VG/RS hasn't discussed is online vs offline. The quote you took is from their advertisement page (banners and such) not their about/editorial policy page for articles. I doubt it wouldn't (for .biz explicitly) pass the VG/RS bar, but we can open a discussion. In any case, it's an interview/primary and irrelevant for GNG in this case, so I'm not too bothered besides sorting this out for the future. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your pointing it out Hell. Definitely confusing...in 2007 Wikipedia said the magazine, published by Imagine Media, was defunct, with no indication how long. It's not clear what the connection is/was between Imagine Media (original publisher of original American magazine) and Steel Media (current publisher of new UK magazine). "Imagine Media, the American publishing arm of the publicly traded British company Future Networks"...it seems quite possible they're related as corporate siblings or something. But anyway, yeah, whether we count that cite as RS or not, by itself, wouldn't change the AfD question for me. ––Agyle (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Agyle: the Draft space is too new to have any guideline specific about it. However, WP:PRESERVE is an approved policy that covers this precise situation - verifiable facts that would belong in a finished should be retained, not hidden. The existence of the game engine is easily verified with the references provided - even if this game engine does not become notable, those references could be used at a wider topic article in a section covering this type of software. Diego (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2014 (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.