Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Game & Watch


 * 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. While the first comments supported merging or deleting, almost all comments after HumanxAnthro's policy based analysis of the sources were in favor of keeping, several of them referencing the analysis, making it a relatively clear keep. (non-admin closure) Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Game & Watch

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was created after it was rejected from AfC with the edit summary "send to AfD if you disagree", so I am nominating it for deletion as I still believe it fails WP:GNG. The reception section is filled with exceedingly WP:TRIVIAL mentions, and is the textbook definition of a WP:REFBOMB made to look impressive with little to no substance. Mr. Game & Watch was only made into a real character around the time of Smash Bros. and he was just a generic figure beforehand. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge to Game & Watch - Plausible search term, and there's probably like a paragraphs worth of noteworthy, sourced info. But the article is extremely bloated with pointless passing mentions to create the illusion of a reception section. Endless, vapid "(Website X) found him (one word descriptor)" type commentary. The "controversy" section is equally bloated. A tiny aspect of the character was seen vaguely offensive so they removed it". It needs a sentence at most at the respective Smash Bros article.  Sergecross73   msg me  16:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge as per Sergecross73's suggestion. Pahiy (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems a lot of its content was used from my old draft when I was still new to Wikipedia, but that might be coincidence. Since my old draft was merged to Game & Watch based on memory I don't think there's much here that can be salvaged. Panini! 🥪 18:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note, if this stays, I'll do a fix up of it in August. There's a lot of room for improvement. Panini! 🥪 04:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Game & Watch - Its definitely a useful search term, but there really is nothing here that isn't already covered properly on the main article, and I see no compelling reason for it to be WP:SPLIT to a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The most common concern here seems to be that the article is beyond stub-length only because it depends on mentions in sources mainly about other topics. Apart from the statement that they're just mentions, this is technically valid as a lot of the citations are sources about Smash Bros (the game itself and worst-to-best lists of all characters), but there are aspects of the available sources indicating non-trivial coverage and some independent notability, such as a Washington Post article mainly about the character, the incident of a notable Smash Bros. player getting hated for using such a despised character to obtain success, the character's rank on the UGO.com's listing of "50 Cutest Game Characters" (of all video games, and definitely not just of Super Smash Bros.) and the racism allegation controversy specifically directed at the character, which, whether you thought the problem wasn't that serious, got a serious online response and publication interest nonetheless.
 * Since trivial mentions are a frequent complaint here, I'll bring up this part of an essay (WP:AVOID) to remind people about the letter and spirit of WP:GNG: "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." For instance, the UGO list, even though it's not mainly about the character, gives the character non-trivial coverage by calling it one of the cutest gaming characters and elaborating why.
 * To continue this in relation to the sources listing Smash Bros. characters, I'll admit to not being a fan of the repetitive sentence structure Sergecross73  brought up, but that is not an indication the coverage was trivial, and to be honest, it was quite loaded for Serge to call the coverage "pointless passing mentions". Lists like those from Polygon and Dan of Geek gave detailed elaborations for why they ranked Mr. Game and Watch where they were:
 * Den of Geek: "Mr. Game and Watch is to Nintendo icons what Bosko was to Looney Tunes. He’s such a delightful deep cut. It’s been eighteen years since his Smash debut and I’m still in awe over what a brilliant addition he was. In a game about mismatched properties and characters, nobody seems like more of an oddball than this janky gentleman. Yeah, he’s just an amalgam of Game and Watch figures and he has not actual backstory, but consider this: Smash is the only time anyone’s ever had actual fun playing an LCD game. That’s impressive."
 * Polygon, who ranked the character the worst of all Ultimate characters: "Mr. Game & Watch is a fun fighter with plenty of old-school personality, but he also has never appeared in a game outside of Smash Bros. He’s not a real classic character, merely an amalgam of our collective memory of the Game & Watch handhelds. What a sham!"
 * To be fair, the article's current state doesn't take advantage of these, and only short quotes are given, but that's the fault of article quality, not topic notability and the potential of this article's length being beyond stub-class.
 * Basically, I think the article fulfills well-enough (although not the best) the standards we all look for for an article to be kept: enough material to be beyond stub-length and aspects of coverage that give it independent notability. I'm not !voting Strong Keep, however, because he's only appeared in one game, and like others said, the cited sources are mainly about other topics. I'd also would clarify that I wouldn't use Screen Rant to determine a topic's notability, as Screen Rant's reliability has had a mixed reception from Wikipedia users, although there's no clear consensus on it as there is with sources like the NY Post and Daily Mail. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, to the nominator of this article, ZXCVBNM, you probably didn't intend this, but a shortcut you used in your rationale, WP:TRIVIA, links to an essay page stating that calling coverage "trivial" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. It's also the essay I cited for proving my argument. Just want you to be aware of that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, no, it says to avoid asserting that trivial coverage is significant, or making an incorrect assertion of trivial coverage. However, I think I meant to link to WP:SIGCOV instead, sorry.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge with Game & Watch: I see no reason why this shouldn't just be a condensed section in the Game & Watch article. There does not seem to be enough relevant content to warrant a separate and bloated article. Curbon7 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this article is to be believed, Mr. Game & Watch was created for Super Smash Bros and not actually as part of the Game and Watch series. That, the controversy, and the Amiibo demonstrate notability outside of the Game and Watch series. Article passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of those things prove notability in the Wikipedia sense. How is "being created for Smash Bros" (??) or there being an amiibo ("plastic toy" for the non-video gaming crowd) supposed to be contributing to the GNG? Sergecross73   msg me  00:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it has received press coverage for both. WP:GNG is all about receiving press coverage. As much as I personally don't care about Super Smash Bros or Amiibo, they're clearly both notable. NemesisAT (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's important to distinguish simply "press coverage" from "significant coverage". Plenty of games get press releases of a few sentences, that does not indicate notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of them are press releases other than the Business Wire ref. NemesisAT (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per the arguments and source analysis by 👨x🐱 which indicate that the aggregate coverage is not trivial. A recent RfC indicated a consensus that Screen Rant is reliable for entertainment or pop culture topics, but inappropriate for BLP's where sourcing standards are meant to be higher, and this is not a BLP. Iterations of the character have appeared in multiple games so the assertion that it only appeared in one game or was created specifically for Smash is clearly incorrect. As for the proposal for the article to be merged back into the Game & Watch parent article due to the state of its quality, there is room for improvement, but article content does not determine notability per WP:ARTN as per the notability guideline page. There's a lot that can still be written about the Game and Watch series which does not involve specific discussions about the title character or the Smash-related topics. Haleth (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep 👨x🐱's analysis makes pretty clear that the character is independently notable. Although the article quality leaves much to be desired... Mlb96 (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per HumanxAnthro analysis, there's a possible chance that this article barely meets notability. 180.194.130.4 (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SOURCESEXIST, it should be a certainty that it meets notability before it is allowed to remain as an article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also per SOURCESEXIST, the sources cannot be sexist to women or men. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per analysis by 👨x🐱 and also . Feels a bit weird to me personally that there should be separate articles (and can see why this was nominated), but I have been convinced that it's within policy and acceptable here. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. This is a well referenced Meme that passes WP:GNG.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with others, 👨x🐱 makes a great case.  D r e a m Focus  14:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes as a notable video game character per the cited sources and rationales (keep votes) provided by the other users here. However, the article needs expansion and some improvements.  Wario-Man  talk 10:20, 14 July 2021 (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.