Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items in Super Mario Bros.


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Items in Super Mario Bros.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is a sprawling list with no weight information wise. The info it does offer is trivial and in-universe. This article cleary crosses the Game-Guide line by providing information on all power-ups and items in the Mario series. This should be deleted as was Zelda items and Metriod items (which was redirected).→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  04:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Lankiveil (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete, I agree with LonelyBeacon. Sean MD80 talk 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. These lack real world notability independent from the game, too.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup The article as is needs cleanup. It needs to remove the glut of random one-shot items and keep the ones that have appeared in multiple games (like Starman, whose main article was previously deleted, IIRC). JuJube (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Zelda items had "reappearing items" such as arrows and bombs, but it was still deleted in ordanace with the policy, this sould be too. Overal the article is just to trivia, if it just had "reappearing items" it would still be too short, trival and in-universe.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  14:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The debate you linked to says "No consensus". A lot of zelda's items are indistinct, normal objects like "bomb", "slingshot", "boomerang", but some of its items that are distinct are included in this list - Musical instruments from The Legend of Zelda series - and a whole page for the Master Sword. If there's a lot to write about on a topic that spans many works in the same "universe", then it usually deserves its own article, and there are countless examples of this principle being upheld - just pick your fandom and browse around. Thanks for bringing up Zelda; it strengthens the case for Mario TheBilly (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an AfD for Starman here that closed with the result "Merge to Mario (series)"; that was never done, and perhaps rightfully so since that article wasn't the appropriate place for it. If there are separate articles for the Mushroom and Fire Flower, the Starman should definitely have one too. JuJube (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up - Since single-handedly reviving the video game industry 20 years ago, Mario has had a profound impact on it. There are plenty of significant things to write on its signature items, as some of them have become a deep part of gaming culture. The current page is of low quality (and a lot of it should probably be completely removed) but it has lots of potential, so deleting it would be just as justified as purging all the stubs on Wikipedia. Poor quality is not a grounds for deletion. Cleanup, improve, keep TheBilly (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is of poor quality but that is not my grounds for it's deletion. True mario is an important part of gaming, but an intire article for just the items seems trivial, Zelda items and Metriod items were also deleted on these grounds. Also, as others have pointed out, the article fails sevral wikipedia policies and guidlines.→ 0 4 1 7 4 4  22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - there maybe one or two items that could conceivably have their own article that have perhaps made a cultural impact (I'm thinking of the Mushroom, which I see already has an article), otherwise this is indiscriminate information. Marasmusine (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. J I P  | Talk 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Save and edit - It doesn't have to be a game guide in order for us to put up information (god forbid). How is it vandalism? Anyways give informtion a chance, you might like it. Mario is big enough a legacy for us to be able to say the word: Super Mushroom on Wikipedia and come out alive. If you can't keep the page can we at least add each seperte list of items to each corresponding page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.215.219 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think you misunderstand. No one is calling this article vandalism.  At issue is whether or not this article meets the standards applied to all articles for inclusion here.  The two key policies at issue are at WP:N and WP:V.  That is, the articles has to be notable (which some elements may be, but this notability must be verifiable in legitimate, independent sources.  Failure to meet these criteria is grounds for deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (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.