Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitro Nation Online


 * 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 merge to Creative Mobile. Kurykh (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nitro Nation Online

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Run-of-the-mill racing game. Reads like an advert, really. Calton | Talk 09:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Calton, thanks for the questions, I have to agree, by the definition expressed in WP:GNG this article is not suitable for deletion (Significant coverage with Reliable citations, that are independent of the subject). This is a work in progress and I am hoping to attract more collaboration to improve the article. - RadRacer20xx | Talk


 * Merge to a section in Creative Mobile. I would say "weak keep" as barely passing WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth (reviews) sources, such as WP:VG/RS. and a bunch of not explicitly vetted RS. A bunch of sources look unreliable though. Notability is not based on article quality or perceived popularity, so being poorly written or run-of-the-mill is not a valid deletion rationale. However, the amount of content is very small, so there likely isn't a need for a separate article. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Run-of-the-mill" means "not notable", so yeah, it most certainly IS a "valid deletion rationale". --Calton | Talk 12:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABLE has a precise definition expressed in WP:GNG, and "run-of-the-mill" or any similar is not GNG criteria. If you say that it is not notable because it doesn't meet GNG criteria, that's one thing. But only saying "run-of-the-mill" ("(un)popular", "(un)imporant", etc.) is subjective and does not reflect community consensus about notability criteria. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi HELLKNOWZ - Regarding the 'explicitly vetted RS', after reviewing the list, there are very few sites at the moment that handle mobile games. As for the small amount of content, this article is still being improved upon in my spare time, I'm using the template from similar mobile racing games Real_Racing & CSR_Racing - RadRacer20xx | Talk
 * There are very few reliable mobile game review sites, because most are no better than advertising blogs with no editorial policies, experienced staff, review criteria or standards, or acknowledgment by peers. In other words, they are not reliable and simply "look pretty", but aren't really suitable sources. This makes the vast majority of mobile games non-notable. 2 sources is technically multiple, but that's barely enough content to justify a separate article.
 * The two articles you linked aren't the best examples. For instance, the CSR Racing gameplay section is way too large. This is WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOTGUIDE. If we keep or merge the NNO content, we will trim it down significantly. All the career and mode information can be summed up in a paragraph or two. Similarly, we can't include large portions of quotes that are copyrighted material per MOS:QUOTE. We have to summarize and paraphrase. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the resource references, this will definitely help me to improve the overall quality of the article! Give me a few weeks to read through everything and check through the vetted review sites to see which ones might have some relevant citations I can use. It's still my preference that this article remains separate than merging into Creative Mobile. - RadRacer20xx | Talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Creative Mobile per user:Hellknowz. A section redirect will remain from that, so no encyclopedic information will be lost to the reader. bd2412  T 03:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  19:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge - I can't help but notice how much more stringent the sourcing standards we apply to recent games are; with anything pre-2010, a single reliable source (vetted or no) is usually enough to get a landslide decision to keep, even if the article has been around for years, but with recent games we delete any articles that don't have a dozen reliable sources as soon as they're created. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason behind this double standard. That said, this is a fairly small article at present, so a merge would work. Addition of a couple more reliable sources would be enough to swing me towards "keep", but RadRacer20xx's post above is his latest contribution to Wikipedia, so apparently he was not able to find anything more.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2017 (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.