Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowser's Fury


 * 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn per nominator request. (non-admin closure) Mlb96 (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Bowser's Fury

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm not convinced this article has any merit as a stand alone title. Suggestion is to bundle the information included within this page with Super Mario 3D World. SkippyKR (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SkippyKR (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Invalid deletion rationale. There's plenty of sources present affirming this is notable for a standalone article. JOE BRO  64  23:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll expand on the rational. (please excuse me, this is my first AfD) Bowser's Fury was never sold as a stand alone game, rather bundled with a re-release of 3D World during the 35th anniversary event. While the re-release is notable, certainly, the Bowser's Fury title is not particularly notable independently of 3D World. It's akin to DLC for the original title, released 8 years after the original release. SkippyKR (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a deletion rationale or based on policy. Tons of DLC, Expansion Packs, remasters and remakes are notable and have their own articles. Several of the sources are specifically about Bowser's Fury alone, separate from 3D World. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, appreciate the explanation. SkippyKR (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep No actual deletion rationale presented. The article is chock full of sources that are reliable and indepth. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above comments. Might want to consider closing this discussion since the following votes will likely be speedy keep too. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, I agree that it may not need to have a standalone article, but it's more of a merge question than deletion. Sergecross73   msg me  00:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what I was attempting to suggest. I perhaps have submitted incorrectly if there is another option for this type of request. SkippyKR (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I propose withdrawing this AfD. SkippyKR (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2021 (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.