Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario characters in other media


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Mario characters in other media

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a compilation of all the characters of various non-nintendo media featuring mario. That information belongs in the respective article, not listed here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no different from the "in popular culture" sections that have been deleted from Wikipedia articles. J I P  | Talk 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * so far from their having been deleted, most of them are still there, or merged into the articles, and most recent popular culture article afds have been closed as keep; the older deletions are slowly being upgraded and restored. DGG (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. These characters should be listed, if at all, in the articles about the respective movies, television shows, or comics, not in this one collective article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Lists (discriminate and verifiable) and Five pillars (consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world). Consistent with "in popular culture" articles that have been kept.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know what the lists wants to accomplish other than compiling trivial facts. I agree that if these characters are to be listed anywhere, they should be listed in the respective article for the medium, not in an all-encompassing list that adds no real value to the encyclopedia. – sgeureka t•c 13:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the list and merge the information into relevant articles if reliable sources can be found. This is essentially a huge, unverified trivia section, and these are generally to be discouraged.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 15:30, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
 * they are only discouraged in favor of including the material elsewhere in the articles if possible, not being deleted. DGG (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:PSTS, as it entirely lacks secondary sources (and sometimes even primary sources). Also, although the list may have defined inclusion criteria, there are a potentially infinite number of lists with defined inclusion criteria, and we have to consider whether the inclusion criteria are in fact meaningful and notable. In my view, this is merely a compilation of trivia. Hence, in my view, the page as a whole fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Jakew (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This argument can be used to delete every list in Wikipedia. Its the argument which is indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I simply need to explain it better. Consider the difference between "computer games released in the 1980s" and "computer games released on the last Thursday of November". If you were writing an article about the former, it wouldn't be all that difficult to identify sources that actually discuss the subject, because the concept is meaningful and people have actually written about it. That doesn't change when you insert the words "list of" at the start of the title, because the inclusion criteria for that list have a meaningful existence outside of WP, and are a recognised and documented concept. This is not, I suspect, true of the latter: the inclusion criteria may be well-defined, but they are completely arbitrary.
 * Now compare this article with, say, List of deserts. The concept of a desert is notable (ie., it has been noted) and has a well-understood meaning. Can the same be said of a "Mario character in other media"? Jakew (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * see below, I didn't actually !vote till now. The Mario characters are also a perfectly well defined list & are notable to many people. The places where the y appear are i notable media. They both have an excellent very sharp definition, without even the ambiguity about what is a desert. The characters have a meaningful existence outside Wikipedia, and so do the places they appear outside the series. I agree that Mario characters released in the month of January and their appearances of British TV would not be a good article. Are you judging on the basis of your evaluation of the ultimate intrinsic importance to the world of these characters--I'd agree with your judgement of artistic or cosmic significance, but that still isnt a good reason. DGG (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete An article on 'Mario in pop culture' is enough through cultural impact. Martarius (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure collection of trivia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Trivia section are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of which do not actually have consensus. Plus, the article does not even have "trivia" in it's title and nor is a section of a particular article.  Thus, it is not a trivia section, but a discriminate list that demonstrates the notability of Mario characters by cataloging there appearances and use in other media.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete too much trivia for me.-- danntm T C 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Trivia is encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not paper. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to make a joke? I missed if you are, and if your not, Trivia encyclopedias prove nothing with regard to wikipeda policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't paper is more of an excuse, than an actual reason. It's pretty clear the consensus is to delete the article. Le Grand, why are you posting that Amazon link more than once? People can see the link once, it doesn't need to be posted in two replies. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely unencyclopedic.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * UNENCYCLOPEDIC is a subjective and a weak rationale for deletion. Wikipedia is a compendium of general, specialized encyclopedias and almanacs and this list is consistent with what Wikipedia is.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in seeing how a "list of Mario characters in other media" could possibly be a good fit for any specialized encyclopedia or almanac, including one solely dedicated to Mario.  KleenupKrew (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A verifiable, organized, and discrminate list as this would indeed have a good home in any such place. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this incoherently named article organized or discriminate? What is "other media"?  Other than what? KleenupKrew (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The coherently named organized and discriminate article has a specific criteria (Mario characters) and "other media" obviously means other than Mario titled video games. It really goes without saying.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as better than separate lists for the different media. Seems documented. Not indiscriminate, for it deals with the use of notable characters in various notable places. No more indiscriminate than List of castles for the general articles & List of castles in Lithuania for the countries with enough castles & information to justify it. Either is acceptable, and so is this, but I'd have no objection to splitting it. Admittedly, I am interested in castles and not these, but that's not relevant. DGG (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No refs at all. Buc (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The films, television shows, and comics are references. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:22, 22 May 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.