Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushroom Kingdom Fusion (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus, particularly given the dramatic improvement the article underwent mid-AfD. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mushroom Kingdom Fusion
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

NN, OR, somewhat self-promo. Game over. roux   13:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 14:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note – the content is nearly completely copy-and-pasted directly from its Wikia entry here. I'm not sure on what actions to take as this is copying of GFDL-compatible text and hence does not constitute a copyvio. MuZemike 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  Very Weak Keep, Trim down & Tag for Cleanup  While no improvements have been made since the last AfD, potentially useful sources have been cited in there which should definitely have been brought up for discussion. Nom offers a It's just not notable argument which isn't enough to delete, OR is a reason to tag for cleanup instead of deletion. For the sake of this present discussion I suggest evaluating whether This joystiq article and this Kotaku review (and possible other, more RS) can be used in this case (both sources are considered conditional use by the WikiProject VideoGames Sources List) and whether these are sufficient to rewrite a (much shorter) Neutral Point of View article or not. I'd answer with a weak yes (hence my !vote). Not opposed to redirect to interwiki link either. MLauba (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Vote Changed to Replace with MuzeMike's Version MLauba (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not notable is an excellent reason to delete. // roux   14:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not when it's not argued and substantiated. A blanket WP:JNN appears to indicate that you didn't bother following WP:BEFORE, if you did, please do mention what efforts you undertook in AfD Nominations. As it stands, it reads as if you were confusing notability and importance. MLauba (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those indicate that it passes WP:N to me. Which is an excellent reason for deletion. If NN isn't a good reason for deletion, what's the point of the notability policy? // roux   15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point. I kindly request that you argue why you think it's NN (in other words, what steps you have taken to reach this conclusion in accordance with WP:BEFORE) or withdraw your nomination for failing to do the required homework. MLauba (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not reading. I did read the previous nom, I don't agree with its withdrawal, I don't think those sites establish notability due to largely being fansites, and I kindly request that you start A'ing some GF or withdraw your previous comment for failing to actually read anything. That good enough for you? So glad. // roux   15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time you could just specify all of this in the nomination proper so that we don't have to second guess your reasoning, and I'd also kindly remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks for clarfying though, it is appreciated. MLauba (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Beg your pardon? Telling me--quite erroneously--I didn't do my homework.. that's civil, yep. Christ. Look in a mirror before you post, k? Thanks. // roux   16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I initially only requested you demonstrated that you did, I do believe that is civil and is still admissible under AGF. That being said, as the requested substance is here now, I suggest we drop the rapidly growing tit-for-tat game, I don't believe anything is to be gained from there. MLauba (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicts) That is, (taking from the deletion policy) the article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline; attempts to find reliable sources establishing notability have failed. That would be a reason for deletion. MuZemike 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (edit conflicts), but not per lack of established notability (albeit very very weakly), but because the entire article contains content not suitable for an encyclopedia—mainly not a mirror of the web site, not a web host, not a extensive guide about the game. MuZemike 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternate proposal – I whipped up something really quickly in my sandbox which (I hope) is far more encyclopedic, does not contain the unsuitable content I mentioned above, and is reliably referenced. I still recommend that the current state of the article in the mainspace should be deleted (that is, it could be deleted and then recreated with my version or similar), but I will not oppose straight keeping it and replacing it with a cleaned up version (namely my version or similar). MuZemike 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really a hack of Super Mario Bros., is it? I vote replace with your sandbox but that one statement bothers me. The only way in which I can see calling this a hack of SMB is that it borrows some sprites from SMB3. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed "is a hack of" to "is based off" (upon suggestion by MLauba) to avoid any negative connotations. MuZemike 23:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Replace with MuZemike's stub so that we at least have an article that follows the style guide and verifiability policy. Roux, we don't have a policy on notability. I think the kotaku and joystik sources are pretty borderline for the coverage required by WP:GNG, so this is a "weak keep". Marasmusine (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. Though MuZemike's sandbox version is a vast improvement neither of the sources used go near what I'd consider to be the letter and spirit of notability in terms of significant coverage. At the very least articles need a single secondary source of moderate depth and misc. smaller sources, these are just signposts. It may be that more sources appear in the future but that's just a possibility. Someoneanother 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam. Fails WP:Note.--Sloane (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Replaced now with my version from the sandbox . Gotta change to keep as a result. MuZemike 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability and lack of significant coverage. Andre (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per MuZemike's improvements Elm-39 - T/C 17:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Still voting delete, of course. MuZemike's efforts notwithstanding, notability hasn't actually been shown. // roux   02:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and userfy as WP:N hasn't been established. Thanks for the help, MuZemike, but it's still not yet ready. Math Cool 10 <font color="MediumSpringGreen">Sign here! 03:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete exhibits no proof of notability Paul75 (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep MuZemike's version as a well-sourced and encyclopaedic article. Notability's a guideline so it gets trumped by policy.
 * Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to rephrase, correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content, move text within an article or to another article (existing or new), add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced, or request a citation by adding the tag - policy.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep based on MuZemike's improvement of the article. Edward321 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, for now. There may be additional reliable sources which confer notability when this fan-produced game is released from beta, which will in my mind make the article keep-able. However, I am not convinced that the article as it stands meets inclusion guidelines. JRP (talk) 17:20, 15 March 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.