Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of developers that have created levels in Super Mario Maker


 * 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 to Super Mario Maker. Consensus that this should not be a separate article.  Sandstein  08:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

List of developers that have created levels in Super Mario Maker

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is just a textbook example of a trivial page. Not at all needed for this website. While there are reliable sources used, there is no real need for this. GamerPro64 19:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above reason Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note. and, I have to point out that saying "Not at all needed for this website. While there are reliable sources used, there is no real need for this" is not an argument for deleting an article. That reliable sources have reported on it would be the very reason to keep it. --Soetermans. T / C 11:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have worded it better or just not have included that in. But I think some other peoples comments in this AfD have put it better than I. GamerPro64  20:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. as creator, I think that the game design of these well known developers is very notable, and the sources prove this. If anything, it is interesting rather than trivial. ~ Mable ( chat ) 22:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because something is interesting doesn't mean it warrants a page. What value does a page about developers making levels in Super Mario Maker have here? We wouldn't do that if developer made levels in LittleBigPlanet. GamerPro64  22:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know that's a relevant example though? Did LBP have levels created by notable developers? And if so, did they receive coverage from third party sources? And even if you answer yes to both, that still doesn't prove precedent unless you've got some deletion or redirect discussions to point to. If there's no consensus on that, then that could just be another notable list that no one got around to making... Sergecross73   msg me  03:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just listing of developers that happen to have created levels using this tool; this page actually gives encyclopedic information on said levels such as the inspiration of the developer. That's a big reason why I think this article is useful for an encyclopedia. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERESTING. —  Scott  •  talk  16:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - It passes the WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Every entry is sourced to reliable sources per WP:VG/S, and cover it significantly. List of levels made in Texas is trivial. List of levels made by someone named Steve is trivial. One made by notable developers, sourced to tbird party sources that dedicate whole articles to it? Definitely not trivial.  Sergecross73   msg me  23:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a commercial game and the link to "Polygon‍ '​s "Devs Make Mario" series", Twitch, and the one made under Nintendo's purview makes it read as if it's a built-in WP:ADVERT. Anyone who has a level on Mario Maker is a developer of a level for the game, and just because they're a developer in the industry doesn't give them extra notability to stand out in a separate article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One item on the list may have been promoted by Nintendo, sure, but its content in this list has zero ADVERT/PROMOTION issues. Nintendo is not cited, third party reliable sources are, and there are no promotional details present. The rest of your concerns miss the point of the list entirely. Its inclusion criteria clearly state that its only listing notable developers, as in, ones that have their own article. The Wikipedia definition of notable. Items in a list having their own article is commonly used as inclusion criteria on whether or not something should be added to a list article, and whether or not a list should exist at all. Every single item on the list so far is a blue link, not a redlink. That's a good sign towards list notability. Please see WP:NLIST. (Which I note, is different from the WP:LISTN I cited above, but still relevant.) Sergecross73   msg me  02:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - I was wondering if Polygon's coverage of Mario Maker through its "Devs Make Mario" series would be considered primary sources in this article. After all, they basically "made" these developers make a level under their supervision (or something along those lines). Even then, however, that would only mean three of the eleven sources do not count for the topic's notability and everything is still covered by secondary sources. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think first party, in this situation, would be citing Nintendo, the game itself, or the developers themselves. But, as you said, either way, other sources cover Polygon's articles about it, so either way the third party coverage is there. Sergecross73   msg me  13:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - plenty of WP:VG/RSes. Notable video game developers making levels for a notable game. --Soetermans. T / C 11:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite reliable sources, each is a standalone entry. Pre-established game developers creating Mario levels has not been considered as a list anywhere outside of Wikipedia.  WP:NLIST states, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".  This is not the case here, with two levels being Nintendo PR and the other three being an original Polygon series.  No one else has put these together as a topic. - hahnch e n 12:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What you're citing is a way to positively confirm notability, but the lack of it does not confirm lack of notability. It operates the same as things like WP:NSONGS or WP:NALBUMS, where subjects may not meet them, but still meet the WP:GNG, so they are kept. Case in point, we have a List of Nintendo DS games, but you'd be hard pressed to find a WP:RS that literally documents every DS game. Yet it's notability is also not challenged, because so many of the items on the list are covered by reliable sources and have their own articles. The same applies here.  Sergecross73   msg me  14:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your example isn't entirely valid, as there are probably plenty of reliable sources talking about the "best DS games" or "the DS has an interesting game library" or whatever. The guideline says that the items in the list could be commonly grouped by RSes, but not that all items in the list should be present in such RSes. But I'm sure this is still the case with other lists, such as List of Electronic Arts games where the games themselves really don't have to have any common ground other than being published by EA. I'd argue this list of Mario Maker levels has more "groupness" than EA games, honestly. ~ Mable ( chat ) 15:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe your example is better. Same concept though - there's still many notable lists of things on Wikipedia that aren't really listed anywhere else. Sergecross73   msg me  15:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to the main article. The levels developed by them are covered by reliable sources, but it does not mean that a full article is needed for them. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing stand-alone WP:GNG criteria for WP:LISTN -- significant and lasting coverage of the topic of the list. In other words, the topics "SMM level designers" or "notable persons designing SMM levels" are not notable. This is a list of trivia with very narrow inclusion criteria. While the article has WP:VG/RS, they focus on a known person as they happen to be engaged in a design activity, which happens to be SMM. As for lasting notability, the short articles are one-time news events with little in-depth information. As for the typical WP:SPLIT reason for lists (like the ones mentioned above), the amount of content is very small and most information is trivia. If the levels are notable, then this can be mentioned there. A quick mention in the game's development section is sufficient. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Super Mario Maker - although notable, the page consists of little more than a table and there is no real reason why it needs to be a standalone article. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  03:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N. --143.105.12.138 (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with Super Mario Maker - This obviously cannot work as a stand-alone list because then it would end up being indiscriminate. I think it can work if it was merged with the main article about the game but only if the most notable devs are covered. Of course, given the sources, it's enough for almost the entire list to be merged. --TL22 (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - Please look a little closer, what you're describing is already the current scope of the article. Sergecross73   msg me  14:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge with Super Mario Maker (for now): As was said above, this is simply a table with a brief introduction. However, taking a look at the references shows some potential for prose about each stage, so if someone were able to make that work, I would be all for Keeping this article. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand: Digging further into the sources says that the entries can definitely be expanded into prose. I should have time this weekend to create a userspace subpage that does this. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge with Super Mario Maker or delete: Not noteworthy outside of a very narrow segment of video game enthusiasts. Modern game titles involve hundreds or thousands of personnel in all aspects of production. Among the listed developers are journalists not established in game development and redirects from articles about people who apparently did not warrant their own article. It is interesting to read, as has been stated, but not noteworthy in a general sense. A handful of electronic articles on gaming sites does not constitute significant coverage. 192.107.155.5 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirects? Who was redirected? Last time I checked, each of these persons had an article of their own. ~ Mable ( chat ) 04:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While it might not be interesting to you, doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy. These handful of electronic articles is exactly the reason why it does constitute significant coverage. We're not disputing that a game like Assassin's Creed Unity has several hundred people working on the game. This list (which, again, is based upon sources) mentions other developers who have made a level in SMM. --Soetermans. T / C 13:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, electronic articles aren't to be looked down upon simply because they're electronic. IGN, Nintendo Life, Eurogamer, and Polygon are notable per WP:VG/RS, and Siliconera and Gamnesia are questionable, but not necessarily bad. The others that aren't listed there seem okay at a glance except Nintenderos, and that's because I don't know Spanish well enough to tell one way or the other. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering too if the "electronic" was meant as a jab at their notability. --Soetermans. T / C 08:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge, per the various arguments above. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Super Mario Maker; it's actually quite useful for those interested in the discipline of game design, but not so interesting and useful as to justify a standalone list. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:53, 4 October 2015 (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.