Help needed to create Defold Wikipedia article!

AFC request submitted. waiting times are not promising :man_shrugging:. in the next few days I’d like to expand on:

  • runtimes size
  • performances (the post written a little while ago could be a start)
  • cloud build
  • the fact that Xcode or Android Studio are not necessary

Well done! Much appreciated!


the article passed the content assessment and has been accepted. Defold - Wikipedia is now a thing :slight_smile:

as said above, there is still some work I’d like to do. also someone suggested linking this and this which are excellent references


Great! Thanks to everyone who participated.


Bad news: the the article has been taken down for a few reasons. There are multiple reasons why but one worth mentioning on the forum is

The moderation teams views this as promised compensation and a breach of guidelines.
Also, @britzl and Ragnar (one of founders)'s history of contributing to the post a few years ago presents a conflict of interest.

EDIT: another issue raised by a moderator was that Defold doesn’t meet the notability criteria i.e. Defold must have received significant external coverage prior to getting an article. It also seems that proposals to create an article have been rejected several time in the past and Defold is approaching spam status in their eyes, risking the topic being banned from the website altogether.

1 Like

I’ve taken back this offer and updated the original post.

Correct. The wikipedia page was initially rejected because I attempted to create it myself. And then a community initiative was also rejected for reasons which I can’t remember.

I have two main concerns with this whole thing:

  1. Wikipedia redirects Defold to the page about King, giving a false impression that Defold is still somehow affiliated with King.
  2. Wikipedia is a source of truth. So much so that even Google uses it for its Knowledge Graph. Not having a wikipedia page is a significant disadvatange.

I personally feel that this is really inaccurate. Some arguments for this case:

  • Defold was initially know as the internal game engine used by King, the makers of Candy Crush, the worlds most profitable mobile game ever. This in itself is notable.
  • The fact that King is no longer the owner of Defold and instead handed over the source code and trademarks to the Defold foundation is notable. Source: King is making its Defold game engine open source | Pocket | PGbiz
  • Defold has gradually grown into a well known game engine. Some sources to back up this claim:
    • The European Game Developers Federation recently mentioned that “the Commission should increase its support for privacy-friendly open-source alternatives for game engines, like for example Godot or Defold”. Source: EGDF
    • Google is recommending Defold as one of the main engines to use for Android game development. Source: Android Developer Pages
    • Defold is approved middleware for both Nintendo and Sony consoles. This is not something most game engines can claim. Not even Godot (which has a Wikipedia page btw).

Hobbyist non-gamedev Wikipedian here, I think there are A LOT of misconceptions flying around about Wikipedia, and I’d like to take this chance to attempt to correct the most important ones as best I can.

Anyone who finds the notion of a Defold Wikipedia article important should listen to what I have to say

Firstly, the following two posts hint at a gap of understanding in what exactly WP is, what it is for, what it is not, and what “notability” specifically means in a Wikipedia context.

Instead of practicing the old tradition of Wikipedia users spamming a few shortlinks to various help pages in your face, I’ll do my best to explain these fully and lay them out below (However I will still add links to learn more where reasonable)

Wikipedia is, at its heart, an Encyclopedia, which is a fancy word for a “Tertiary Source”. This means that it collects and aggregates facts from reliable secondary sources, and cites those secondary sources directly rather than citing original sources/official sources.
This means that it is not sufficient to simply cite official pages, Refold, etc.

For each fact/factoid/statement made on a WP article, it should be backed up by at least one of the linked sources (And cited in-line). Official sources CAN be included in the total source list and can be used to corroborate implications from secondary sources. This is why companies cannot make up feats about themselves, and then edit their WP pages to brag about them.

The fact of the matter is, WP is treated like a nexus and source for the one official truth. WP plays an important role in everyday society, and therefore what is written on WP is treated with high regard.

On a personal and social level, I can totally understand and respect how it feels offensive having your life work (in the case of britzl) or your favorite game engine (in the case of many others here) be described as “NOT NOTABLE”. This is a massive insult, and understandably quite hurtful, especially when many other game engines of slightly larger userbases have their own fully fleshed out WP pages.
The important thing to note here is that the people saying this don’t mean that the game engine Defold is an unimportant subject, but rather that the WP article “Defold” has not necessarily proven that it meets the criteria laid out in WP:Notability

WP:Notability is typically measured by number of WP:Reliable Sources. This means that in order to prove that a subject meets the criteria, a draft must be submitted with a list of Reliable Secondary Sources which back up the statements made in the draft.


Thanks for explaining in more detail @grify !

For the page itself then I guess we need to add more sources.
Here are a few (sorry if duplicates, as I don’t remember what the page said):

Recent mention by Casey Muratori, a game industry veteran:

Our repository has more than 3000 stars now:

We’re listed in the list of technologies used by Steam games:

We’re in the Top 10 of popular game engines on OSSInsight:


I’m glad to help!

Specifically sources which meet the criteria of WP:RS, which can be summarized as “Reliable secondary sources in unbiased media”, this means newspapers, books, news articles online, etc, anything from secondary sources (which are sources that use primary sources [AKA original/official sources] to comment on goings on).

Specifically, of the 4 sources you listed in your reply post, only the first is likely to be admissable as a reliable secondary source. The others are not secondary sources.

Sorry for the assumption, but “secondary sources” can translate very weirdly into other languages. I recommend reading a brief summary of WP:RS to understand exactly what is meant and what is admissable if you believe I have inadequately explained.

I’m happy to answer any further questions about WP, RS, COI, or any other series of letters strung together in a pretentious manner :slight_smile:


Intuitively, I would have assumed the opposite to be true – the first article is a collection of opinions by a blogger while GitHub and Steam list objective figures. One could even argue the first article violates WP:QUESTIONABLE. Could you explain why you found that one source to be a reliable secondary source?


This all ties back to what a secondary source is.
The key part of this is, as you said,

They list these figures themselves because the data comes from their own respective databases. This makes them considered platforms, and therefore the data/stats/info on those pages are considered primary sources. The information contained on them isn’t assumed to be WP:N until it is mentioned in a secondary sources.
While you are completely correct (good eye!) in flagging the first article for being potentially opinionated, the opinions of an industry professional speaking in a public and official capacity (preferably with further links included in the article to back up claims made) can be considered notable.

You can think about this in the manner of Elon Musk on Twitter. If Elon Musk were to tweet that the sky is, in fact, green and everyone else is afraid to speak the truth, then this would be an unsourced opinion (and maybe a conspiracy theory, or evidence of his colorblindness). However, if Elon were to tweet that “Tesla is having financial troubles”, or that “Self driving technology is near-impossible to get right”, then these things could be considered potentially notable primary sources due to his authority in the field. Secondary sources commenting on these tweets would therefore be fully admissible for citation on WP.


thanks @grify

so, taking this article as an example

could this be considered a secondary source or should we find a blog/tweet that comments on the fact that google suggests using Defold?


I started a new topic under Talk so we can make sure we have reliable sources


Simply citing google itself could be considered a direct citation of a primary source which would qualify as original research which is not allowed. You would need to find a news article or report or something online saying that google recommends it, not a tweet, but something marginally more official and public than that.
Most preferably, think “news websites” and anything close enough to gaming news websites to be considered unbiased and topical overview

1 Like

This was an interesting read. Lessons learned today:

  1. Wikipedia has a lot of bureaucracy
  2. You can trust media on the Internet and newspapers (they can be unbiased)
  3. You can trust individuals with subjective thoughts/opinions (aka Mask)
  4. Never trust big companies like Microsoft (Github) and Valve (Steam)

This eliminates 100% of the Internet:

Self-published sources (online and paper)

…self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media…

User-generated content

…Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable…

Thats… not true? Go to any Wikipedia page and click on the links and you will see that while the majority of the internet is not admissable, there is still absolutely a serious amount.

RS include articles, papers, books, and reports, as well as other things, basically anything as long as it has a publisher or title it is published under who does some level of taking responsibility for truthiness of the content. An example of this is the generic article for Sleep, the niche generic article for Trees in Mythology, and the specific article for the 2022 USA Inflation Reduction Act.

Wikipedia itself does not do fact checking, because they are focused on making an encyclopedia. They aggregate what mainstream sources can say, and cite those mainstream sources, such that if any claim on Wikipedia turns out to be wrong, you can see exactly where the falsehood originated.

The Sleep article cites many different sources. Some examples: The NIH (National Institute of Health), the medical journal “Sleep Medicine Reviews”, and conferences at The Science Network.

The Trees article cites other encyclopediae, a few books, and the University of Hawaii.

The IRA article cites The Washington Post (a reputable news source), USA Today (An online newspaper), and Politico (A political website and news source).

Now, all of these topics are fundamentally different, which is why you see a variance in the type of source most appropriate to support claims made in any one article. Regardless of the type of article, Primary Sources and Original Research (such as tweets) would not be admissable.

Finally, for adjacent articles to Defold, the types of source most heavily relied upon is gaming industry news sources, gamedev reporting, and gaming journals. Getting Defold in and other bigger names in gaming as well as more general mainstream news outlets would be your best bet for supporting a claim to WP:Notability.

I want to be 100% clear though: you can still cite some primary sources for specific things in Defold, where it would be unreasonable to expect them to be cited elsewhere, but as per this Godot talk page thread, it looks like 10 total secondary sources about varying aspects of Defold from various gaming and gamedev and generalized news outlets would be an example threshold of WP:Notability. Primary sources don’t contribute to WP:N but can still be (and often are) used to support claims made in-article. Secondary sources are preferable for both ends.

UGC is wholly inadmissable.


This has been an interesting read.

Has anyone included links from GamesFromScratch?

Seems like his articles could be considered gamedev news, and he covers Defold pretty regularly.

Yes, and it looks like GamesFromScratch is considered an unreliable source from their perspective.
You can read the discussions here.

I wanted to say that the terms are so broad that one could classify almost any website as one of the two categories. Blog posts about Defold - self published content, an expert talking on Youtube about Defold - user generated content, even Github could be treated as self published (code) or user generated (stars). There are a lot of blog posts in references so I’m guessing it all comes down to a Wiki moderators/admins to decide if a content is trustworthy.

1 Like