Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elevator 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator 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)

Strangest page I can remember coming across. Looks like an editor came across some random nonsense on a blog, misread it, then wrote an article about it. Thought about CSD-G3, but I guess the blogs indicate that someone, somewhere thinks that this is a thing. In short - no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suppose there's enough to dodge the G3 bullet. But in any case, when the best referencing the topic has is Thought Catalog (accepts open contributions, permits fictional contributions, no editorial oversight whatsoever), and even THAT deems it obscure, I think it's safe to say that notability is out of reach. And that doesn't even address the nonsense grammar issues. So maybe it could earn that coveted G3 speedy after all? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it may be worth pointing out that the article's original founding edit had a very different lead text to the one it current has. It may only add a miniscule amount of additional credibility though and the sources aren't exactly suitable in my view. I think it's unwise to judge the article on the poorly edited version of the current lead, although I don't think the article stands up to scrutiny regardless. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Nothing here worth saving. --Lockley (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsensical contribution that serves no encyclopaedi purpose. -The Gnome (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This actually exists as an urban legend, as evidenced by coverage in Bustle and Evening Times, but not finding significant coverage to meet the bar of WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 17 January 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.