Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jailbreak (Roblox)

Jailbreak (Roblox)

[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)

While seemingly well developed and sourced on the surface, I do not believe there is enough WP:SIGCOV of the game itself - independent from coverage or interviews of one specific developer, Alex Balfanz, and does not establish notability of the game itself per WP:NOTINHERITED - to warrant a separate article from List of Roblox games. Multiple sources on the article are of dubious reliability if not completely unreliable (Digiday, Entertainment Focus, and the Roblox Realm 3 book), primary sourcing, and all sources used in the Reception section - something that I think would require a lot of strong sourcing to warrant a split from the well-developed list article entry per WP:NOPAGE and WP:MERGEREASON - is actually just trivial coverage.

I also want to point out a few quality issues that make me seriously doubt the integrity of this article. The article phrase "Jailbreak has had a large margin of positive feedback and reviews from critics" cannot be reasonably made when every critical statement about the game is trivial, from an unreliable source, or from the context of an interview/coverage of one of the games developers. This arguably falls under WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT being given towards low quality sources. "A Discord forum was established for players to discuss about the game and report game issues": what is a "Discord forum"? They're called servers. All coverage of the NASCAR partnership is UNDUE as it is exclusively cited to primary sourcing from the NASCAR website itself not counting Digiday which does not appear to be a reliable source. If kept the article needs a look from more experienced editors and drastically improved.

All in all, I do not think that there is enough coverage of the game itself, in reliable sources (particularly those listed at WP:RSP and WP:VG/S, especially) to establish independent notability and separation from List of Roblox games. Which I would consider the bar of notability for Roblox games to be way higher when the list already requires notability to begin with and WP:NOPAGE + WP:MERGEREASON exist. Everything about the game that is noteworthy and well sourced is already covered in the list article, which I recommend either a merge or redirect to. λ NegativeMP1 06:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 06:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Roblox games#Jailbreak - oh boy, the rationale is almost longer than the article itself. But the current state of the article or its writing quality doesn't matter except for cleanup purposes per WP:NEXIST, anyone can go and fix that, so what is really important here is whether it passes WP:GNG. The CNBC article is good, but the others are from iffy/unreliable sources. It's yet another example of a barely-notable Roblox game that got some mentions, but not enough for its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I brought up the quality concerns in the first place as it made me raise my eyebrows in multiple ways that made me doubt the integrity of this articles existence in the first place. I typically do not concern myself with article quality as part of a deletion rationale over notability. λ NegativeMP1 07:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I originally made this as a userpage, then a draft and now a article, I didn’t know the reliability of some sources, but I gave my opinion on this. rave (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong draftify and then merge with Draft:Jailbreak (Roblox) - Instead of everyone normally just debating to redirect the game to List of Roblox games, I'd feel like it's more better if you draftified Jailbreak and then merged it with Draft:Jailbreak (Roblox) because if we draftified it then that'll give the page more time to improve it's SIGCOV, notability and reliability before it can be moved back into mainspace and I'm also suggesting to merge it with Draft:Jailbreak (Roblox) to avoid confusion of it being a duplicate/copy. MrDevolver (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AKON. Arguments like "it can gain notability as a draft" are iffy because if you can't prove it during this AfD, standing on its own as an article is unlikely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is so confusing, is it because the sources aren’t reliable? If it’s reliable sources then can’t the unreliable sources be removed? I'm relatively new to this, I thought if it had sources that go in-depth, at least have a section on the topic, and is independent of the subject then it’s good, what sources are unreliable? If the unreliable sources are removed can the article be notable or no? I’m attempting to get an answer here because this is weird to me. rave (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you take out the sources deemed unreliable by the community (Business Insider and VentureBeat), I don't think there are enough to pass the WP:GNG. That's the main problem here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait so the problem is notability? I thought it was notable because the sources on list of Roblox for Jailbreak were there so I used them, I didn’t know that they were unreliable? Sorry for the mistakes though, really! Is there really anything that could be done to improve this or is just likely deleted, redirected or drafted? rave (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all, There are sources here that are reliable and trustworthy sources such as Business Insider, New York Times, Bloomberg News, and CNBC, all these sources mentioned here don’t give Jailbreak a mention inside their own articles, some have a section or part of the article being about the game and other sources cover the entire game as a whole. Yes, there is some sources out of the ones I mentioned that MIGHT be considered unreliable, but a few of them have a section that goes in-depth into the subject, Entertainment-Focus is an interview but the source isn’t even made by asimo3089, badcc or anyone in the Badimo group, It’s made by a game interviewer who has made various game related articles on the website, this is a secondary and independent source, WP:Interview says that reliable interview sources should largely be used for facts. The "discord forum" and "Jailbreak has a large margin.." is yes, all misleading information since it breaks WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE but these can be easily fixed or removed. Even though NASCAR is a primary source, that can be removed easily. I think the most that could be done is fix this article a large amount and possibly remove some sourced material. rave (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also draftify is a option that’s alright rave (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the Digiday and Roblox Realm Book can be unreliable (especially the realm book since it’s possibly LLM generated with its use of AI art and dubious writing) and the Digiday is kind of mostly about the NASCAR event and not the game itself. rave (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this editor is the article creator which should be kept in mind for any assessment of consensus. Athanelar (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their comments are as valid as anyone else's. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and consider Redirect to list of Roblox games. The reason this article is in mainspace at all is because of this teahouse thread where User:GarethBaloney encouraged RaveCrowny to 'be bold' and move their article directly to mainspace which I think was bad advice. RaveCrowny's account is too new to create articles directly in mainspace and that restriction exists for a reason, they should have followed the proper AfC procedure and submitted the article for review, and in any case I don't think WP:BOLD applies to unilaterally publishing an unreviewed draft. Athanelar (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. GarethBaloney (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought a extended confirmed account knew what they were doing, didn’t know I did something probably stupid. rave (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Agreed with Athanelar; that was not good advice to give to a newbie. Rave, don't blame yourself for this either; a lot of more experienced editors have had this happen to them too (including myself; see the AfD). In my opinion, when there's a subject-specific notability guideline that may be different from GNG, notability may be one of the hardest things for new editors to get their heads around. It definitely took me a while to figure it out. I would suggest asking others at WT:VG for their thoughts if you're unsure. For future reference, the notability guidelines for video games are explained at WP:NVG. Gommeh 📖 🎮 17:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athanelar, autoconfirmed accounts can make articles in Mainspace, which Rave is a member of. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I didn't realise rave was AC when the article was moved. Nevertheless I don't think as a relatively new editor they should've been encouraged to publish the article without review. Athanelar (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree it would have been best to go through the AFC process, though the process might have let it through anyways. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 17:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If an article would be accepted at AfC, I don't see why this could be deleted. As for coverage, maybe it's not great. But coverage is coverage. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 15:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CREditzWiki: This comment doesn't make sense. Firstly, the article wasn't accepted at AfC in the first place (revision of the article creator moving it to mainspace). And even if it was, something being accepted at AfC (one editor) cannot prevent other users from coming to a consensus. That is an unnecessary and illogical levels of bureaucracy that does not exist on Wikipedia. λ NegativeMP1 01:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm opting for a permanent Wikibreak. WP:COMPETENCE. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 13:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I know I’m not too experienced (been here for half a year now I believe), but I never thought games on a video game would be classified as possible for a Wikipedia page, if so then what stops other games on Roblox or even other games being included, perhaps I’m looking at this from a wrong angle but it would seem kind of Promotion-esque, if I was a user of Roblox (which I certainly am not but if I were) seeing a game which has a Wikipedia page would somewhat “entice” me, so perhaps I’m wrong and if so then please tell me but this seems somewhat not Wikipedia-esque. (Correct me if I’m wrong)” Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: There are two votes for keep here: one is only keeping it because it was "accepted at AfC" (it wasn't), and the other was a keep from the article creator (and therefore doesn't really count). In comparison, there are 5 votes to redirect + my nomination, with 4 of those redirect votes also calling for it to be turned into a draft. In-fact the article creator themselves even said "also draftify is a option that’s alright". I'm not sure how consensus is unclear. λ NegativeMP1 01:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: Because it isn't clear if a redirect should remain or not, since some editors are proposing to draftify without leaving a redirect, which is why I decided to give this another go. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, makes sense. λ NegativeMP1 02:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

from the article creator (and therefore doesn't really count) - Can you cite a policy for that, or did you just make it up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Roblox games#Jailbreak, for the reasons lifted above. Some of the listed citations in the Jailbreak article may be of use to the list of Roblox games article. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]