Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steal an Egg
- 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 redirect to List of Roblox games#Steal an Egg. Salvio giuliano 06:56, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Steal an Egg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I propose redirecting to List of Roblox games#Steal an Egg because there is pretty solid evidence that the game fails WP:GNG beyond the treadmill doomscroll controversy, such as a dearth of reviews or sources about the gameplay. If the article was renamed and cut down to only focus on the controversy, it would probably fail various tenets of WP:MERGEREASON and be better off merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:08, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:08, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Roblox games — per Zxcvbnm. MrDevolver (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect per ZXC. The only remotely good source I could find is this one from Massively Overpowered, which is not detailed enough to be sigcov. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 18:55, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hi everyone, I am the person who made this article and this article may have a chance of staying up in the future if it gets enough or extra sources since right now it has 21 Citations but this article will probably be at high risk of being a redirect sadly for me. Welp, have a good day everyone:) . 1Ink (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Roblox games: per nom. Non-notable game and sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV aside from coverage of the controversy which can be easily summarized at the main list. MidnightMayhem (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak keep: the polygon source seems to be detailed enough to be sigcov. haventcameupwithanameyet 04:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Even if we assume that is in fact SIGCOV, a single piece of it does not mean something is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:04, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't Rock Paper Shotgun sigcov? 1Ink (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- The RPS article certainly isn't, I don't see why it would be. It devotes like, one sentence to Steal an Egg. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:10, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't Rock Paper Shotgun sigcov? 1Ink (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Even if we assume that is in fact SIGCOV, a single piece of it does not mean something is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:04, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect. This is quite borderline, and I think a weak keep would be defensible if only applying WP:GNG. There is indeed coverage from reliable sources that describe the game, such as Kotaku and Polygon. But a redirect here is appropriate because of WP:SUSTAINED. What reliable coverage does exist occurred over a brief period in August 2026 describing backlash to a specific feature. Later coverage consists of guides or sources we wouldn't consider reliable. You really could reduce most of this to a summary of the Controversy section to make the point in List of Roblox games. VRXCES (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
 |
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
| |
- Comment: Im not to sure why the Sonic Speed Simulator article is still up since that is a roblox game while this has 23 or 24 citations but the Sonic Speed Simulator has 19 citations. 1Ink (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
- It's not just a count of sources, it's about their quality too. A quick skim showed a large number of unusable/unreliable sources. Three sources were links to IGN's wiki, which fails WP:USERG. Another 3 are Sportskeeda, which is listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S. A few more were LinkedIn posts - social media posts don't count as sources. There's a lot of junk sources here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
- I know, it's a mess right now and it probably will be for a long time. 1Ink (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then it's probably destined to be redirected for now. You can always create a WP:USERDRAFT and work on cleaning it up slowly over time, and maybe someday it'll be ready to be published. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a possible better solution. 1Ink (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Turning it into a draft would be a good solution. 1Ink (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a possible better solution. 1Ink (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then it's probably destined to be redirected for now. You can always create a WP:USERDRAFT and work on cleaning it up slowly over time, and maybe someday it'll be ready to be published. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- I know, it's a mess right now and it probably will be for a long time. 1Ink (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- It's not just a count of sources, it's about their quality too. A quick skim showed a large number of unusable/unreliable sources. Three sources were links to IGN's wiki, which fails WP:USERG. Another 3 are Sportskeeda, which is listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S. A few more were LinkedIn posts - social media posts don't count as sources. There's a lot of junk sources here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 14 October 2026 (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.