Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prism3D (2nd nomination)

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. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prism3D

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable video game engine that fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. All sources currently used are either pages from the developer's (SCS Software) website or unrelated statistics about a game that uses the engine (but does not include information regarding the engine itself). Using WP:VG's custom search engine, I was only able to find two reliable sources pertaining to the topic, both from Shacknews:

"Prism3D Editing", which is two sentences about how SCS Software created a blog post.
"Prism3D Interview", which is two sentences referring to this (very brief) interview on HomeLAN Fed.

This interview, then, would be the only thing coming close to GNG's "significant coverage" requirement, but is far from sufficient. It is also unclear whether HomeLAN Fed is a reliable source anyway. IceWelder [✉] 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not considered sufficiently independent anyway. --Izno (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ — why I think it should be kept
- Two secondary sources were added into the article to establish its notability.
- The prose part of the article were majorly translated from Russian Wikipedia, with another version available in Ukrainian Wikipedia, which I believe it proves its notability somehow.
- If it is 2008, I would agree the engine is not notable. However, this is 2020, with the huge success of Euro Truck Simulator 2 and American Truck Simulator — both of them are on the million-level sales — I don't think the engine is non-notable at all.
- While some websites are inappropriate to use as sources, the engine does receive its individual page. For example, igdb.com, mobygames.com, etc. It can be more if googling it. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two secondary sources added, one is a review of a game that uses the engine, while the other is a rehash of a news piece from SCS themselves about a tool set for the Blender modelling program. Neither constitutes significant coverage of the engine as it only appears as a passing mention in both (PC Invasion even only refers to a "Prism Engine", not "Prism3D"). Other-language versions of the article do not make for notability either, especially when the Russian one only uses SCS as a source, and the Ukrainian has no sources at all. They should be subject to their native deletion processes instead. MobyGames, IGDB and the like are user-authored and unreliable, and include a plethora of non-reviewed entries, as the sites have no notability standard (after all, they act as databases, not encyclopedias). Sales of games using an engine do not make the engine notable – notability is not inherited. Even the games themselves wouldn't be notable from sales alone; they would still need significant coverage, although high-selling games are usually covered frequently in reliable sources. Unless this engine is independently notable, which it is not, an article for it has no place on Wikipedia. Maybe the Truck Simulator Wiki would be a better place for it. It might also be necessary to point out that Unnamelessness is the primary author of the article. IceWelder [✉] 14:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, in this article, primary sources with significant coverage and secondary sources but less significant coverage work as a whole. On a certain level, it meets WP:GNG, though not strictly. If we do strictly follow the policy of proving the subject independently notable here, I would say it prevents us from improving Wikipedia. For example, I would not agree with the perspective that games wouldn't be notable from high sales. High-selling games must be notable in the video game industry; this is WP:COMMONSENSE. If strictly following WP:GNG is still required, I would put WP:IAR here.
Secondly, notability is not inherited is not a content guideline or policy. Plus,

Subjects can still be notable by other means and even when they are not, often such articles can be merged or redirected to the article on the associated subject.

I totally don't believe the article has already reached the level where it must be deleted.

Moreover, as per WP:NSOFT:

Self-published citations, including press releases, product listings, and other non reliable sources may not be used to establish notability.

It does not fully restrict the usage of primary sources in terms of establishing notability. Also,

Primary sources should only be used to verify non-contentious objective content such as release dates, features, etc.

Which is exactly how the article uses primary sources right now.

Last but not least, I would not say I am the primary author of the article — it seems like implying I have no rights to comment here, which for me, this feels like bureaucratism. I do not own the article — I am just one of the article's contributor. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next to no coverage in reliable sources = no notability = no article. Pavlor (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already expressed a poosible redirect/merge if keep is infeasible before, but I really don't think the article should be deleted. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misinterpreting the very line from NSOFT that you are quoting. Primary sources "may not"—as in, "cannot"—be used to demonstrate notability. As all significant coverage comes from primary sources, therefore there is no notability due to lack of proper coverage in reliable secondary sources. Features may be sourced to primary sources (of course, why not?), but only for topics that are already notable otherwise. Merging/redirecting might still be feasible but the NPOV would have to heavily be cleaned up. I would still favour deletion, which was also the result of the prior AFD. IceWelder [✉] 12:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a suitable redirect/merge target SCS Software. It may be hard to prove notability for a niche game engine, a selective merge looks like a fine "alternative to deletion". Pavlor (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:GNG due to lacking any sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources about the subject itself, let alone from multiple sources. The article is basically just as unnotable as it was when it was deleted in 2008. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and does not have enough sources. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 12:51, 20 May 2020 (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.