Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StepMania (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 keep. John254 02:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StepMania

Non-notable video game. Use of source code to create a display in a non-notable museum exhibit does not establish notability. No external sources to produce verifiability. Chardish 18:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this game popular and well known. -Icewedge 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources brought up in the first AFD?--Chaser - T 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to be dismissive, but those aren't in the article (with the exception of the museum one.) I would add them myself, but I don't really see how they establish notability: one is a short review in a local paper, another is a passing reference in an article about a piece in a museum exhibit, the third reference is merely a summary of the second, and the others are merely articles about the museum exhibit that don't even mention StepMania. Unless there is something inherently notable about the museum exhibit (and there's not), I don't see how those are enough to justify notability. - Chardish 19:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Museum is notable enough for an article, and it was the engine behind In the Groove (video game). Article was speedy-kept 9 months ago. --SarekOfVulcan 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game is popular and lots of people play it, not to mention it being a source engine for several other DDR type games. Liempt 21:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is the game engine for two notable commercial video games; In The Groove (video game) and Pump It Up Pro. That alone establishes notability. --w^L^{<speak·check>}
- Notability is not inherited - the subject of the article must be notable independently of all other subjects. - Chardish 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly notable free PC game that's appeared in a number of reliable sources. Moogy^(talk) 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable sources? - Chardish 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable and already kept from previous AfD. Second paragraph establishes notability. Or am I that biased because I play this game a lot? -- Kl4m ^{T C} 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's well known and popular. I don't see how it doesn't meet the notability. Cocoma 21:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT: Everyone simply saying "it's well known and popular" - that doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. You have to prove objectively that it is well known and popular. That means finding reliable sources that establish the game's notability. Of course a game is going to be considered "well known and popular" by its subculture; we need specific proof of that. - Chardish 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shouldn't you be making it as a comment instead of bolding or enlarging all your text? And by the way, your user page states that you are a site administrator at Flash Flash Revolution. Your afd is a WP:COI. Cocoma 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how this AfD relates at all to FFR. It's not like I have anything to hide. - Chardish 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as [an administrator], has competing professional or personal interests." Wikipedia's own definition of the subject. You have something to gain by this page being deleted (namely, less "word" about the competition), since you are an administrator of a rival program. In any case, there's no reason to delete this page whatsoever. There are many, MANY pages on far less notable software; are you saying we should delete every one of them? This page is informational and encyclopedic, and therefore should stay. Keep. HoCkEy PUCK 21:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Perhaps you missed the giant section of our website devoted to StepMania files, or the section of our website where we encourage discussion of StepMania (which has well over 50,000 posts on it). You are being a conspiracy theorist; FFR has nothing against StepMania. As a Wikipedia user with many contributions to a wide range of topics, I have enough experience to recognize that StepMania is non-notable software, and if you could set aside your paranoia and look at this situation objectively you would understand it. Besides, would you care to explain how StepMania is more notable than FFR, which was recently deleted for lack of notability? 2) Yes, I do think that similar pages about less notable software should be deleted. All of them. - Chardish 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debating this is probably counterproductive when the discussion is heavily trending keep. In narrow cases, I probably wouldn't close a deletion discussion on the numbers including blatant COI !voters (and I don't know that that's the case here), but everyone, including IPs and the article subject's mother, is welcome to contribute persuasive arguments based on Wikipedia policy.--Chaser - T 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to stick with Keep here, since although notability can't be inherited (both ways), and the article could definitely use cleanup, that doesn't dismiss the fact that the game is notable. If you need some facts, the Sourceforge [1] project page gives download statistics--well over 500 daily downloads. It's a rough metric, but it does at least give an idea of the activity of the project (not something where there's any established guideline for notability, though). Anyway, the discussion related to the deletion of the FFR article is irrelevant to this AfD. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 06:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm inclined to lean towards a keep, but some of you keep voters need to step up and prove your claims by adding the sources. I know it, you know it, but it needs to be V'd and S'd anyways. --UsaSatsui 17:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't vote on this because I'm involved in the development of the software in question. I did want to bring up this video, however, which shows StepMania as the main focus in a segment on Call for Help (With Leo Laporte). I do not know notability guidelines, so I do not know if this passes muster. Someone with more intimate knowledge of Wikipedia's plethora of guidelines can surely help determine this! Thanks.Plaguefox 13:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a vote, so you can certainly express your opinions here (thanks for disclosing the conflict, though). Anyways, that appearance may fit the guidelines (check WP:V. --UsaSatsui 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stepmania Rocks!!! it has many sites devoted to songs for the game, it is notable as it has a large amount of fetaures not avilable with the regular counsle games I.e. ability to create songs\add songs, more game play settings, adapatable G.U.I. and multiple modes of play —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.78.33 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2007 (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.