Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bike or Die!

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 — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bike or Die![edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. There are some reviews for it's sequel Bike or Die 2, but this one doesn't have anything to be found in searches. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hardly notable. Speaker616 (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a reception section with citations to emphasise the significance of this game to palm os history. Bike or Die 2 is for all intents and purposes the same game with new paint, core gameplay is identical, so I've restored that content too.pinchies (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with the exception of a review in IGN and a quick mention in TouchArcade, RS do not talk about this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a further reference to PalmInfoCenter, who refer to the original Bike or Die as being a "popular game". I think it would be uncontentious to state that Palm Info Center was the definitive Palm news website for enthusiasts and followers of the platform, and would be a RS in my mind. That would provide 3 RS that felt this game was significant enough to review or announce. I agree that Bike or die 2 would not be a significant enough game to warrant inclusion in wikipedia - it was the Palm OS game that was responsible for the game's success and notability, but Palm Info Center was really about as signficant as it got for "news" about the palm platform and palm user community. Purely my speculation, but I think that if bike or die 1 had not been a success, bike or die 2 would not have rated a significant mention anywhere. Finally, the palm os community was small, and not as organised as large blogs like TouchArcade today - gaming was hardly a core focus of the platform, so I ask the question - what would a RS look like for a game published on that platform? In my mind that is the marketplaces, which were some of the only places that users could easily discover new programs. This game was popular enough on all the major marketplaces of the day, and had a large enough community, that I stand my my opinion that it is a notable game for the palm os platform. The simple graphics are emblematic of a game designed for a cpu-limited device - whereas when the game was ported to the iphone the simple graphics simply did not compete against the modern competition. pinchies (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither palminfocenter or "the gadgeteer" are listed at WP:VG/RS, the toucharcade citation hardly denotes a significant coverage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you Lee that the credibility of the former too is not well known, and agree that the toucharcade citation is not significant coverage. The gadgeteer is a one-person tech review site that has been running since 1997, perhaps it is insufficient as a WP:RS as I'm guessing it would be considered a personal blog? Mobile tech review however, is a larger company which has been around since 1998, and I think mobile tech review should count as a WP:RS. There are no listed sources for Palm OS platform on WP:VG/RS. Palminfocenter would be one that I suggest is worth adding for Palm OS. Thank you for your comments. pinchies (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with User:Pinchies that in this case the original version of the game and version 2 constitute the same subject. Apart from the IGN review of v2 mentioned by Lee Vilenski above, the article includes a couple of reviews [1][2] that I think count as RS. So plausibly passes WP:GNG, even if not by much. Nsk92 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- pinchies (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure how to cite it, but a theme in many of the bike or die 2 reviews, is that there is a nostalgia and significant appreciation for the original game e.g.[reply]
  - "Have you ever owned a PalmOS handheld in your life? Then most likely you have played Bike or Die, a driving game simulator with a platform-game philosophy, similar to X-moto for Mac OS X, at least once." (from here)
  - "You might have heard of Bike or Die game if you had any Palm treo device. Bike or Die is the best and super-addictive game I have ever played on any mobile device. "(from here)

Sigh. One is a literal blog (already known by the name of the site, and it isn't a WP:SIGCOV either). The other seems like unreliable source, reviewed by "Anil". Enough said. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these places are listed as RS at WP:VG/RS Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bike or Die 1 and Bike or Die 2 cannot be the same subject, nor do I understand why the article is referring to them as versions as they are greatly different from each other, instead of original and sequel (in fact the very same source from the article says BOD 2 is a sequel [3]). ~~The article right now is in a WP:NPOV violation, mostly being positive and trying to make it like it was ultra popular.~~ Most of the sources are app listing pages, or primary ones. Touch Arcade is a WP:ROUTINE article of a game release, and doesn't cover the game indepth. Nsk92, MobileTechReview is an unreliable source, reviewed by "TerpKristin" username doesn't give much hope and there is no staff or editorial policy. The Gadgeteer is also a blog per [4]. None are WP:RS. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your comments. It may well be that this game is not able to be listed on WP due to a lack of RS. However I can’t see many places where a Palm OS game would be found that count as a RS? There were no Palm of magazines I’m aware of at the time of the games release. The game was created in 2004, which was in the later stages of the Palm os platform, and which was all but dead by 2007 when the last ever Palm model was released. That gives this game only a short window of significance. Most of the games listed for the Palm Os platform on WP are not significant, rather they were released for other platforms as well as Palm OS. This is one of the few games I think warrant listing for Palm OS on its own merits. I made the case for referencing the popularity of the game at the time from those download counters - hardly the most reputable source, but I felt they were likely to be reasonably objective and impartial. Regarding Bike or Die 2, it was often referred to as 2.0 rather than being a distinct title, an example of this was that even after the 2.0 release, the 1.4 version could still be used to complete on the games leaderboards, since the actual gameplay was identical. pinchies (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I finally found one more reputable source!! The game was released in mid 2004, and it managed to get a mention in the 2005 "how to do everything with your palm handheld" book, which is authored by two reputable tech reviewers, and published by McGraw/Osbourne. The 2005 edition was the 5th edition of this book, there was also a 6th (final) edition that I don't have access to. pinchies (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources have now been found. Haukur (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - do we have consensus that sufficient sources of sufficient quality (WP:RS) have been provided to earn noteworthness (WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG) to satisfy the original AfD? Also, have we satisfied the concerns of some that "Bike or Die 2" is the same exact game with simply an updated coat of paint rather than a sequel, to warrant inclusion in the same article? pinchies (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck your Keep vote because you have done it already. I still don't think Bike or Die 1 and Bike or Die 2 are the same game at all, but it's fairly obvious this AfD is never going to end in anything else other than no consensus/keep, so it's a waste of my time to comment any further on this. Also "we satisfied"? Seems like you are doing this as a promo team or something? WP:COI seems even more likely than before. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - CommentI'm sensing that my enthusiasm for this game existence not being lost to the sands of time is an undeniable bias - one that I acknowledge. As for a promo team?? The game is effectively dead. I tried to contact the game's creator to ask if they were aware of any other reviews of the game - they were unreachable. The iPhone version of the game is no longer playable as it was withdrawn by Apple due to a lack of updates over time. The game's online community is also effectively dead as a result. There is however an active community at the moment trying to archive much of the history and software available for the Palm platform, and this game was one that was significant enough to many people that I feel if lost would leave the history of this platform incomplete. That's my motivation towards keeping that game. My experience and the word of a few others is not encyclopedic, hence I'm doing the best I can do draw upon the resources available to help this article stand some more rigor. This was my 2nd ever article that I have invested time into, so I'm sure there's a lot I'm going to take away from this experience about how to follow the process better for next time. I'm certainly not trying to waste your time, so I'm sorry you feel that way. Regarding bike or die 1 vs 2, perhaps that's semantics, regardless, I can see that you and I won't reach agreement on that topic. I don't especially care about the bike or die 2 game, it didn't seem to achieve a relative level of success that would earn it a wikipedia page, but it happens that the iPhone platform was orders of magnitude larger than the Palm os platform, so more WP:RS are available for that version. I only see value in keeping it there for completeness, and I don't see significant harm in keeping it or removing that section either way. I would like to hear from you especially, have I added sufficient WP:RS to this game that you have changed your mind about the game failing WP:GNG? I hope I have made my position clear. I appreciate that people have generally WP:AGF with my comments. pinchies (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really do WP:AGF most of the time, but the usage of "we" gave me some pause, like I said. Sorry if that was a bit harsh. Regarding the last question, I think you did for Bike or Die 2 (the usage of some blogs/questionable websites/app stores for 1 still doesn't convince me), no doubt. Anyways, I agree that BOD2 seems barely notable, so I would move the info about it in a separate "Sequel" section in the article, or maybe re-purpose the article to be about the game series (1+2)? As a game series article, I am fully convinced to keep this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both your suggestions - the article would work well perhaps as "Bike or Die! (computer game series)", and that it would be effective to separate out the article structure to clearly delineate the two games. I will work on the latter, assistance would be appreciated to do the former and finalise the AfD process pinchies (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2019 (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.