Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rider Game

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rider Game

[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)

No evidence of any notability. Most of the refs are download sites and the only reviews are trivial media sources listing games available.Fails WP:GNG. Searches found nothing better. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article does not violate the deletion criteria because it shows that the game has some notability and has received some coverage in reliable sources. The game has over 100 million downloads on Google Play and over 50 million downloads on the App Store, which indicates that it has a large and active fanbase. The game has also been reviewed by some reputable websites, such as Pocket Gamer and Common Sense Media, which provide some analysis and criticism of the game. The game has also been featured on some online platforms, such as GamePix and Kiz10, which provide some information and gameplay of the game.
Therefore, I think this article meets the WP:GNG and WP:ENT criteria for notability and should not be deleted. DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article does not violate the deletion criteria because it shows that the game has some notability and has received some coverage in reliable sources. The game has over 100 million downloads on Google Play and over 50 million downloads on the App Store, which indicates that it has a large and active fanbase. The game has also been reviewed by some reputable websites, such as Pocket Gamer and Common Sense Media, which provide some analysis and criticism of the game. The game has also been featured on some online platforms, such as GamePix and Kiz10, which provide some information and gameplay of the game.

Therefore, I think this article meets the WP:GNG and WP:ENT criteria for notability and should not be deleted. DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using ChatGPT to write these comments? How is WP:ENT, the notability criteria for entertainers, relevant here? 192.76.8.94 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came to the same conclusion as the nominator. Incidentally, the reference to a review supposedly in Pocket Gamer appears to be fictitious - the link did not lead to a review of the game, and the site's search tool didn't come up with any mention of it. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is changed now DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/app-reviews/rider This is a cited review site that is not a trivial media DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this discussion is over, correct? I will go ahead and fix the article. DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is not over. commonsensemedia.org appears to be a website that allows any random person to create an account and submit reviews. That sort of website is not usable as a reliable source. I suggest you pause and take a breath for a short time before you wind up blocked, as your scattershot article creation and frantic attacks on an administrator are generating more heat than light. Zaathras (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, staff reviews from Common Sense Media are reliable. See WP:CSM. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dorsetonian and frantic bad faith nominations by DarklarkOxs, the article's author. WhichUser AmI 21:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it possible for the article creator to post the correct link to the page? It does not lead to the right review. If the creator cannot come up with several reliable sourced reviews, then this page fails GNG criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as an individual game and too generic a name for it to be worth redirecting to Ketchapp. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most sources are non-reliable. Those which might be RS are low-quality. Does not appear to be Wiki-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete failure of the GNG, no SIGCOV to be seen. Ravenswing 23:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just the fact that it is seemingly written by AI should be enough to be a reason to delete, but there are no good sources. The Pocket Gamer source, which would be a RS, is for a totally different game, thus has been fabricated. Just snow delete it at this point. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This user has been blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE. --ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Correction, this user was created before being blocked indefinitely, G5 is not applicable, but the article does not comply with WP:GNG, so delete. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 01:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable and fails GNG. To make matters worse, uses a made-up source. Schminnte (talk • contribs)
Delete this ridiculous article about a flavor-of-the-month hypercasual game. The sourcing is just not there, so there is no indicator of notability. I also strongly oppose redirecting to Ketchapp or any other article. Merko (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's almost no coverage, with the only RS in the article being a fake link. Weird stuff. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Agreed with all editors involved. What about article Lofe? CastJared (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Will oppose redirecting to Ketchapp. CastJared (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator has been blocked, this is another one of their bad pages. Probably written by AI, no sources, many issues. ULPS (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Difficult to search for due to its extremely generic name, but I failed to find any sourcing that would indicate notability under WP:NSOFT. The only coverage I was able to find were blogs, seo paid placement stuff and user generated content. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to [1], DarklarkOxs [2] is suspected as the sock of Masterofroblox, and G5 may apply. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Devoke water 14:05, 29 May 2023 (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.