Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephino RPG

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 Draftify. If improved to be more encyclopedic, the article should be submitted to WP:AfC before being moved to mainspace. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephino RPG[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. The only reliable, third-party source I can find is igromania.ru, which is already cited in the article. But at five short paragraphs, it's rather trivial coverage—and its coverage of a successful Kickstarter, not even review of the game itself. This Wikipedia article was written by its creator and includes plenty of self-serving claims. If the game does become notable at a later time, it can be recreated by an editor without a clear conflict of interest. Woodroar (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zero non-database hits in WP:VG/SE is quite indicative of lacking notability. IceWelder [✉] 19:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added multiple references to the project, some in Russian, some in Spanish. I am surprised that you assumed I wrote the article; I am pleased to let you know that the article was not written by me but by Svetlana Nelipa; I have no affiliation with her or the website igromania.ru and I never even contacted them about the project. Apart from these articles there are currently 40+ websites actively using the plugin/game (on WordPress.org) and 71 people bought the game on CodeCanyon with 7 reviews of 5 stars. The project is young but it is noteworthy. MarkJivko (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you wrote the Wikipedia article. I've edited my comment accordingly. The references you just added are all copies of the igromania.ru source, not separate coverage. And it doesn't matter how many people bought or play the game, but how much coverage it has in reliable sources. Unfortunately, there is almost none, which means it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Also keep in mind that, per our conflict of interest policy, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article and should instead suggest changes on the Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, please, give one example of a self-serving claim? The project has received significant coverage considering its age in my opinion. I noted the conflict of interest here User:MarkJivko and never boasted about any feature, never said "it's the best", "World's first" etc., presenting only the facts. I could also include reviews such as this one but I don't know if that is considered "significant". If you're being nihilist, then nothing is relevant/significant. MarkJivko (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything touting the features or status of the game is inherently self-serving when added by you, the creator: independently developed...The game allows admins to customize all aspects of the gameplay, from the game mechanics to the storyline and game design...The game can be easily customized by the game master in the point-and-click admin interface. Stephino RPG goes beyond a classic RPG game, allowing players to create and share their own levels of a platformer game...Stephino RPG ran a successful campaign on KickStarter in early 2021 and is still in active development. Our goal on Wikipedia to summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, not let the subjects (or their creators/developers) steer the article. The only reliably-sourced statement in our article is The game can be easily customized, and that's clearly based on your own information because it was published before the Kickstarter was complete. Woodroar (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-serving if it's just a plain fact

"allows admins to customize the game" - this is factually true, and if you want the "source" there's nothing better than the actual source code openly available on WordPress.org
"game can be easily customized [...] in the admin interface" - this is also factually true, just check these screenshots (I am not affiliated with this website)
"goes beyound a classig RPG [...] platformer game" - this is also factually correct and not even something to brag about; yes, the game also has a platformer element to it
"ran a successful campaign on KickStarter" - and I'm going to quote you on this, "its coverage of a successful Kickstarter [...] by igromania.ru"; it was not a failed campaign, therefore it was successful; I simply don't know a synonym that is less "self-serving"

Even before the KickStarter campaign began the game was available in a free public beta (between August 11 2020 and December 11 2020). The fact that it's customizable is not based on my statements from the campaign but on the game's source code.

I would also argue that Phaser lacks in the references department: phaser.io and photonstorm.com are both affiliated with the Phaser project and the only "outside" links are tutorials on Phaser written by its author. It is my opinion that the Phaser page should exist despite not having any "real" article written about it. That framework is awesome in its own right.

I am going to recap this discussion:

You said "The only reliable, third-party source I can find is [...] rather trivial coverage of a successful Kickstarter [...] written by its creator [...] self-serving claims" and "[the article] can be recreated by an editor without a clear conflict of interest"
You later corrected the claim with "I meant that you wrote the Wikipedia article"
The article is not a game review but I never stated it was; also it is not strictly forbidden for me as an author to contribute and I did make a public disclaimer about this on my profile
"Anything touting the features or status of the game is inherently self-serving when added by you, the creator"
I strongly disagree with this statement. If an author corrects an article about himself/herself with facts (such as dates, places etc.) that is not self-serving. I do agree that "positively lighting" a subject is self-serving but I have not done that. No metaphors/epithets were used, no adjectives. Is the statement "this is a game" self-serving only because I said it? Again - I'm publicly declaring my conflict of interest.

I promise to propose changes on the talk page from now on instead of directly editing it. I know I am strongly discouraged from editing directly but the article had to start somewhere (the article only has 9 sentences).

Please allow this to grow into something better in the following few short months.

MarkJivko (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify As WP:TOOSOON. If the creator believes it will improve then let it go through the proper channels for WP:COI content so it can be judged by a reviewer with knowledge of notability policy. Right now it's just self promotion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - in complete agreement with Zxcvbnm Spiderone 19:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I also agree with Zxcvbnm; I have learned a lot about the rules here on WikiPedia and I now have deep respect for all of your efforts MarkJivko (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2021 (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.