Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HaxeFlixel

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 Procedural close‎. Primary author moved it back to draftspace and the article is now a redirect. If that is an issue, WP:RFD exists. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HaxeFlixel

[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)

Was WP:DRAFTIFYed twice and declined through the AfC process but was moved back to the mainspace by the article creator so coming to AfD. All the references are either WP:PRIMARY sources or are WP:USERGEN. Does not meet notability with no mention in any secondary sources that I could find. cyberdog958^Talk 16:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Computing, Internet, and Software. cyberdog958^Talk 16:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could find no evidence of notability for a corporation. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Haxe. The notability of the subject is a lot higher than I thought it would be when I first read the article, but I don't think it's sufficient for a standalone article. This book by Jeremy McCurdy gives plainly in-depth coverage of HaxeFlixel. McCurdy is qualified because he's a tech lead at a game studio. I also found some in-depth coverage in some master's theses and university projects, as well as some self-published tutorials. However, WP: THESIS notes that master's theses usually do not confer notability and the tutorials I could find are from self-taught programmers. My guess is that the authors of these sources have made some money somewhere writing some code for some person, but without more information I'm hesitant to treat these authors as qualified. Even if we do find more sources in this discussion, I doubt we'll find anything that pushes the subject well above the bar for notability, so discussing this library briefly in a closely related article seems most sensible to me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-discussion about draftification and AfD.

This also is tangential to the discussion at hand, but why was this moved to mainspace? I'm not super familiar with how AfC works, but if users can just overrule AfC decisions because they feel like it, that seems a little problematic... HyperAccelerated (talk) HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that unless the editor has a COI, they are allowed to object to unilateral draftificaiton per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. This (in theory) allows their work the presumption of existence in the mainspace (provided there are no other controlling P&Gs, WP:AE being an example) and says that draftification, like deletion, must be a consensus decision. The nominator's statement "Was WP:DRAFTIFYed twice and declined ... but was moved back to the mainspace" is likely them giving the relevant article background and history and may be read that two or more editors are at an impasse and a full consensus decision at AfD is required. A draftification decision may be decided at AfD and will often come with advice or guidance to the editor who insisted on it being in the mainspace. Alternatively, a decision may cut to notability directly and say something along the lines of "no amount of time in the draftspace will create a suitable article given that the subject is not notable." Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thanks! HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2025 (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.