Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Super Smash Bros. series NPSs


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Super Smash Bros. series NPSs


The article appears to be completely original research and is also completely unverifiable by reliable sources. I prodded it but the prod was removed by a new user who didn't give a very convincing reason why it shouldn't be deleted ("Well, it said on it that it shouldn't be replaced..."). Axem Titanium 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Game guide content, violates WP:V and NOR. Andre (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless game guide content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, though I love the game, the article is unsourced and is generally a walkthrough. &mdash;The Gr e at Llamamoo? 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Smerge with appropriate articles. The Super Smash Bros. article already has some of the information right now. This really doesn't violate WP:V- the names of the unplayable levels could be cited with a primary source (the game itself). Gameplay elements/plot don't need secondary sources. --- RockMFR 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure they do. It's the way you can tell "There are three coins in world 3-7" from "Mario has blue overalls over a red shirt." They demonstrate importance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, no.... This is pretty established.... Unless every video game and movie featured article has gone against policy, I'd have to say that basic gameplay/plot just needs primary sources. --- RockMFR 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While the validity of citing a game as a primary source is debatable, it's pretty much clear that citing an Action Replay code as a primary source is not acceptable. Andre (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that. However, it does raise up another question- how far can software be used as a primary reference? The information is there, just difficult to get to (in this case, hidden levels). In my opinion, it's no different than using a difficult-to-access written source (such as an out-of-print book/magazine/newspaper). --- RockMFR 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where an old text is not available in modern editions and not readily accessible via inter-library loans, then I would say that the primary source wouldn't be acceptable as a reference. For example, if I wanted to claim that a certain word was used on a certain page of a rare medieval manuscript, I could not reasonably cite that manuscript as a source -- I would need to cite some trustworthy work of scholarship that made the claim. Similarly, if it takes a gaming prodigy with superhuman reflexes to confirm a claim about a video game, then it would clearly be preferable to find a secondary source, such as a hintbook or a gaming magazine that has printed an article on secrets and tricks in the game in question, and cite that. The relevant policy is WP:NOR. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Levels that you can not legitimately get to need sources for them. -Amarkov blahedits 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Swow 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Game guide-like material that is of utter unimportance to the average reader. Hbdragon88 05:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Super Smash Bros. (series), else merge with their respective game. JQF 14:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator. Combination 15:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable in its current state. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 07:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Interesting concept, but not very well written and next to impossible to cite. -Ryanbomber 12:57, 1 December 2006 (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.