Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Forever


 * 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. Andre (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mario Forever
Non-notable fanmade game, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable Sources, blah blah blah. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Itsa me Delete Danny Lilithborne 01:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Ig yqzs 01:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.   RON   Let's talk  01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete non notabale. As a fan made game, it has no notable developer, publisher, distributor, or retail availibility.  There is no review in reliable sources.  --Jayron32 04:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. EVula 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable fan game with no third-party sources. The Kinslayer 09:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I seem to remeber seeing this as one of the most popular downloads on download.com for a while. Thats certainly why it was on my computer. Robinoke 13:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think you'd have to actually prove that with links and citations before anyone will accept that as a satisfactory statement. The Kinslayer 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In reply has Mario Forever at the top of 2D platformers with four times as many downloads than the second place game. Even the game N comes after it. Robinoke 16:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - If only because Andrevan is going around flagging all these for deletion when certain ones, such as Mario Forever, should definitely be kept. The popularity of Mario Forever is what prompted me to make MarioWeen. It may not have had very many noteworthy mentions on magazines or on TV, but, well, a considerable amount of encyclopedic information on Wikipedia on software would have to be deleted on the same grounds. Andrevan is no doubt aware that nobody is going to defend these poor games; most folks come in and say, "Oh it fails WP: Software so I'll vote delete on principal" without even thinking of anything else. It's very one-sided and kind of sneaky, if you ask me. BlazeHedgehog 18:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldnt agree more. There are some significant fanbased games put of for deletion the last couple of days and being deleted on principle with hardly any comment. Robinoke 16:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your both coming across as pretty daft to be honest. For all your repeated claims of how significant this and other games have been, I've yet to see you ONCE come up with any of the proof that would save the article. WP:ILIKEIT says why merely saying 'It's popular' or 'I like it' doesn't cut it. We need news stories, and other associated THIRD-PARTY (translation: Nothing to do with the games creator) sources of information. If you can't get them, then Wiki policy states the article must be deleted. Blaze merely votes to keep something with no actual reason, and has recently been voting to keep solely based on who nominated the article, which is stupid, to be frank. And FYI Blaze, people are saying 'This article should be deleted because it fails to meet WP:X, Y and Z' because that's the point of having policies. They ensure standards are (supposedly) maintained and prevent cases like this where an article seems to be being used solely to attract more traffic to the creators site. Wiki is not an advertising service, and if someone can't be bothered to say WHY an article should be kept, then it wont be. If you think this article doesn't deserve to be deleted then prove us wrong. Find some news stories (and 7 word mentions in another article don't count either), put the information in the article, and cite them.The Kinslayer 09:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Wickethewok 19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per Wickethewok. Combination 01:57, 2 November 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.