Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Rider 2


 * 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   Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Free Rider 2
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this article for deletion because I believe it goes directly against WP:Notability_(web). This policy states that "[w]ikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers..." which is exactly what this page does. It only describes the features of the online game, including its vehicles, tracks, etc and does not discuss the site's achievements, impact, or historical significance. Furthermore, it seems to be collecting links not in line with WP:External Links, and even contains a whole section of related web sites with descriptions that read as an advertisement. Aka042 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I disagree with your deletion. First of all, Free Rider 2 is NOT a website.  It is a flash-based online game.  Secondly, the article thoroughly describes Free Rider 2, not its affiliated websites (although it does mention a few of them).  Free Rider 2 is a strongly community-based game, so it is obvious that some attention must be payed to the various sites that have sprung up around it. --Isneki (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * — Isneki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: I don't quite see the reason why it should be deleted. People are arguing that it is not notable enough. Yet you allow club penguin, line rider, and runescape. Free Rider 2 is nearly as popular as those games. It has an extremely large community. 10,000 tracks are added on trackmill every day. Not to mention the other 4 database sites and the thousands of forums that have threads dedicated to this game. The Free Rider series is one of the most popular flash games of all time. 131.156.232.147 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * — 131.156.232.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Lack of reliable, third-party, sources to establish notability per WP:WEB.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 00:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Esradekan. Flash games rarely meet the requirements for an article.  This one clearly does not. JuJube (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's a review on Jay is Games, which is good, but it alone cannot hold up an article per the multiple sources required for WP:WEB. There's also a review of the original game on the same site, but that leaves each with only one review and they're both from the same site, it's not workable in creating even a basic reception section (notability). Someoneanother 03:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I too disagree with this. The article has been up and running for some time now, why delete it? Other online games are on Wikipedia, so why is this one so different? --Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment See Other Stuff Exists.  Just because these articles exist on Wikipedia doesn't mean they aren't against guidelines and policies. ZappyGun  (talk to me)  What I've done for Wikipedia  14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think we should keep the page because it basically explains the games. Just because another site has a page of reviewing doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't have one as well. Jay is Games does have a review on it but what says just because one website has something on a specific topic doesn't mean that another website such as wikipedia can't have something as well. As for some of the other things such as the advertising for other websites, this is a valid point that those should not be there. Instead of removing the page all together, why don't we just remove the free advertising. BUT, i think it is interesting that if someone is looking at a page for an online flash game that is free, why not link to a place that they can find it. I know there is google and all that if people are really interested, but honestly, what is a few links to external sites going to hurt.Pages such as the page for Age_of_Empires contain links to external sites, theres right around 92 external links when i checked it just now. The FR2 page contains only like 5 or 10. I know this probably isn't a problem and considering you all say stuff about the Other Stuff Exists rules, therefore none of that really mattered. But honestly, what is a page devoted to explaining a page going to hurt. You'll probably flame me for all of that, but I sincerely don't see any problem with an extra page. This game is getting huge and when searching for "Free Rider 2" in google, wikipedia is the last one on the second page. I'm sure you'll say it's statistically proven that no one googles and looks at the second page, but i'm sure wikipedia has had a few hits that have proven beneficial to the website from this article. Thanks for reading. --Moyyom (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because an article is Useful, doesn't mean its subject is notable or it belongs on Wikipedia. ZappyGun (talk to me)  What I've done for Wikipedia  14:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note — Rally cry from their forum. See . MuZemike 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails WP:Notability. Articles must receive coverage by reliable third-party sources, which Free Rider 2 has not. -- Noj r (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are not the reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteNo notability established. --Peephole (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under criteria A7 (web content with no indication of importance.) Marasmusine (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.