Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goomba (species)


 * 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   Merge into Goomba. I'm going to make this into a redirect, so the text is still available in the history. Somebody who is more familiar with the subject matter should mine the history for whatever needs to get merged. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Goomba (species)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is comprised mostly of game guide content (i.e. an enemy's attacks) and has very little salvageable content. Also fails WP:V and WP:NOR, as the sources are unreliable (especially the Mario Wiki&mdash;wikis should rarely be used for sources). &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki to the Mario Wiki. The article asserts no notability, and I doubt that there is a great deal of reliable, third-party sourcing about it. See WP:WAF and WP:NOT. bwowen talk•contribs 22:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep the article can be salvaged, any game guide content can be taken out. This species has appeared in nearly every mario game from the begining of the series, which I wouldn't call unotable. I am sure some official nintendo related sites or the games the species appeared in themselves can source this article quite well. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep Merge DBZROCKS puts it quite well. This is a obviously notable character from the Mario games, cartoons and film. Sources are on the page already that are not mariowiki, and more could be easily found. I also disagree that it is written as a game guide, any talk about the different types of Goomba would have to include what game they came from, what powers they have and what it takes to beat them. Not including that info would result in a list with no info. If the games were listed as primary sources (see WP:OR's section on primary sources) then OR concerns would be null. Viperix 02:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not know there was two articles, however both articles have good relevant information, that the other article does not have. Perfect candidate for a merge. Viperix 20:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up. As is, it's a few lines shy of being game guide content. Needs work, but definitely savable. Trim & Merge relevant parts into Goomba. -- Jelly Soup 05:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or just redirect to Goomba. This article covers the same topic as an article we already have. The Goomba is an iconic character of a major video game series, so it deserves an article alright, but I don't think it deserves two articles. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect back to Goomba, this is completely unnecessary.  Bur nt sau ce  17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Goomba or keep. There's information there that's worthwhile, but I don't think it's worth two articles. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as this article focuses more on their look, attack styles, relations to other Goombas, and their terrain where they live. The Koopa article that delt with species of Koopa Troopas could have been kept as well.  But that's another matter.  I know it has game content, but that will be removed if necessary.  Mr. C.C. 23:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All of that content can be added to the main Goomba article. Just removing all the game content leaves us with a stub that would be redirected to Goomba anyway. -- Jelly Soup 03:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the Goomba article doesn't have much or anything on the evolution of the different Goomba species. It just says, this Goomba is appeared in this game.  But it doesn't go into great detail about the evolution of that species.  It just gives it a slight mention and thus that area of the Goomba article is neglected.  For instance, the evolution of Goombas from Super Mario Bros. - Super Mario World is not greatly detailed.  That's why the species of Goomba article is good to have.  01:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishhead2100 (talk • contribs)
 * As you've just listed a number of things that could be added to Goomba to improve it, can I assume you're supporting a merger? -- Jelly Soup 03:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't assume. In the Goomba article, there is nothing on the fact that in Super Mario World they were rounded.  All it says is for the general characteristics is that they have fangs, bushy eyebrows, and little other information on their characteristics.  There is no information on their evolution that is why Species of Goomba article exists.  Side question: Why did a bot erase my signature on preceeding comment above and put it as unsigned?  I did sign my comments.  Mr. C.C. 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you're just listing information that can easily be added to the main article. Why have a smaller article on the same subject when the information could be added to the already existing article? It's absurd. -- Jelly Soup 22:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But will people bother to go into depths and talk about the different species? Mr. C.C. 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They could (or you could). Anyway, let's not badger this user anymore. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect, merge if necessary. The Goomba article is pretty much already about the species. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2007 (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.