Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.U.G.E.N


 * 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   keep. JForget 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

M.U.G.E.N

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This program doesn't assert notability and it is full of original research. It is currently supported by primary sources and a fansite, and any mentions in actual sources are likely to be very trivial. TTN (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's cropped up in some sources but mostly as a trivial "Hey check out this YouTube video" (Kotaku, Wired, Washington Post). There's a slightly better article at Cinema Blend, but reading it now is kind of laughable. Not enough to substantiate an article, IMO. Nifboy (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there are a huge number of Google hits for this game... so it seems to be very popular. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per 76.66.196.139. Coverage is broad enough, and whether it's "Check out this YouTube video" coverage or not, major gaming news sites have covered the game.  The article needs a major overhaul, not a deletion. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but which major gaming sites? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Kotaku, Wired, Washington Post). There's a slightly better article at Cinema Blend --a few posts above --Teancum (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Teancum. More than enough coverage to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Search before trying to delete something instead of having us do all the work as usual. Vodello (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those can't actually be used for anything. "Sometimes people post videos of fights on Youtube.[1][2][3]" doesn't really do much in the area of significant coverage. TTN (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The last two sources are more than just posting YouTube videos; they give significant coverage. That coupled with the fact that the other sources mention the game helps it satisfy WP:N and WP:V. --Teancum (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't just satisfy WP:N by throwing sources out there. If they cannot be used within the article to actually show that the topic has signifcant coverage, they're useless. How can the other two be used to do anything besides say that videos are posted on Youtube or the fact that it was updated after a long period of inactivity? They're rather useless. TTN (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Here are two sites that independently review MUGEN. http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7485169&publicUserId=5532875 and http://pcgamereview.net/freegames/mugen/mugen_review.html. I hope this article gets kept because someone has taken the time to write an article. And we should help contribute to it, not remove it instantly. Kendric Apple (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um...both of those sources are kinda bad. The first is a random blog, and the second is talking out of its rear: "Mugen has an online mode against other players, which is the main mode that most people pick when playing Mugen." <- This is flat out false: Mugen has no online capabilities, which has been one of the biggest issues people have had with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope this article gets kept because someone has taken the time to write an article. -- that's about the least valid 'keep' reason ever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or redirect - Games Radar has 3 paragraphs on why it is one of the wierdest fighting games ever. As this is the only significant coverage I've found so far, I have no objection to a redirect to a broader article such as List of fighting games. Marasmusine (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seriously? MUGEN? Not notable? ffs just delete every god damn article that isn't GA/FA and be done with it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep MUGEN is well known in fighting game circles. --Pichu0102 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a joke. Put it on some other wiki that doesn't care about legitimacy. 90% of the sources are youtube videos of fan-content for crying out loud. AirPhforce (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep You can't take the Mugen down without also taking down every other video game. And every movie and book and poem and play while you're at it. It's literature just like any other video game or movie or book and deserves its own article. The proof of it is in the very existence of the article. People have constructed it and people read it. It's useful and people want this article. Deleting this article goes against the very purpose of Wikipedia. 206.225.143.51 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstaining, but the logic that MUGEN is not to be deleted unless every work of fiction is deleted as well is absurd. Not all works of fiction are created equal, especially fan-made ones. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What NARH said. You're making an absurd all or nothing statement. Not that I don't disagree that it should probably be kept, though, but there are better reasons to use than that. MuZemike 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Teancum's findings. I think there's more than sufficient notability established here. MuZemike 22:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstain I feel I've had too much involvement with the subject itself to really say anything one way or another here, but I will say that the article needs the reset button hit on it and to be rebuilt from the ground up. Whether or not notability is sufficient is one thing, but the article is for the most part unsalvageable in this incarnation.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support starting the article from scratch, and may even have the time to help with this. Marasmusine (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for cleanup The various sources found in this AFD more than adequately demonstrate noteability. Jtrainor (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and redo the page from scratch The whole article shouldn't be deleted but there are some links that aren't useful to the topic itself. Vyx's link to his brokenmugenhr is just.....stupid and need to be deleted. And the whole page should be rewritten so it would be easier to read. Blackgaia02 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for cleanup per Teancum and Jtrainor. I myself have also been hounding and working on this article for a long while, but have only had real time to sort out petty discussions about the article such as links and what-not. Looking at it as a whole again, it does deserve either a clean up or a re-write, but the argument of notability has been brought up in the past and it was agreed upon that it is notable enough to warrant an article. The qualifications of such might have changed, but unlike some users here I don't spend all my free time on Wikipedia anymore. Blacklist (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable game; has Washington Post article about it. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (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.