Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Racers


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Little Racers

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

Non-notable game, just another Xbox Live Community Game, no refs, no assertion of notability, most likely written by developer. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can find no reliable sources covering the game, which are necessary to demonstrate notability and allow the article to expand. Someoneanother 14:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment These sources are really not going to help us. XNplay's 'about' page features misc. Q&As, down the bottom you'll see the following 2: "Q: Who are you guys? A: We’re just some guys, y’know…" and "Q: Why does your news come from the demo versions? A: Because like most people using the service, we don’t have 1,000 points+ a night to throw onto games." There is no way to reconcile "some guys" who review games after playing for 8 minutes (that's the length of the demo before it cuts off) with WP:RS. What they're doing is great for the gaming community but their efforts are of no use to us on Wikipedia. Gamasutra is a great source, but the piece in question is looking at sales figures and mentions this game in a couple of sentences, this isn't significant coverage by any stretch. Likewise, IGN is another good reliable source, but their article covers 11 games in less space than they'd afford any game they were properly reviewing. It's literally 4 sentences long and stands it against Super Off Road instead of talking about Little Racers in its own right. Someoneanother 23:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I asked for your opinion. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure. If you come across any game article you're unsure about notability-wise then you're very welcome to drop me a note, likewise the video game project as a whole has a lot of collective knowledge about what sources might be available for particular types of games and if nothing else could separate lost causes from the numerous articles which can be repaired. Someoneanother 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someoneanother 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  keep  weak keep, . Two sources, both decent, both RS as far as I can tell.  Meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated. I think the coverage from the three sources is acceptable, but I agree, the two clearly reliable sources are short and the one in-depth bit of coverage is from a source that it is (at best) debatable about being a RS.  Hobit (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hobit. There is also a stub article on IGN and a short review here . The game hasn't been out long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagetto (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but possibly consider making a "Xbox Live Community Games" article that includes the section from Xbox Live Marketplace and then a list of games that have received some attention such as this one or "Miner: Dig Deep" - not enough to establish them as full game articles but should not be ignored as usable search terms on WP. --M ASEM (t) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think inclusion in a broader article is the way to go, here. Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – the above shows sufficient notability. MuZemike 14:05, 23 April 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.