Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Mario Day


 * 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 Mario. Consensus met. (non-admin closure)  J 947  18:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

National Mario Day

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no indication of meeting WP:GNG. This is not a holiday, as claimed, it is just a publicity gimmick for the company which distributes this game. The coverage is either self-published or passing mentions in puff pieces: none of the in-depth coverage expected of an encyclopedic article. Gronk Oz (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. That a couple of minor sources have reprinted a press release is not an indication of notability. There's absolutely no indication that this is getting any significant coverage even within the VG industry (even Nintendo themselves don't appear to do anything to mark it other than a desultory YouTube video last year which got less than 200,000 views worldwide, chickenfeed to the press department of a global multinational), let alone in the wider world. &#8209; Iridescent 08:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait - Until after MAR10 passes. Perhaps if some news outlets make reference to it we can rethink deletion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless this is speedy deleted this discussion will be opened 7 days meaning there will be more than enough time to add any potential coverage from news oulits before fhis closes.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mario. There's very little to be said here, but what can be said, can just be a small paragraph at Mario. Sergecross73   msg me  13:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, since I wasn't initially so detailed due thinking this was a simple, open and shut case: The sourcing is very weak here.Very few say anything other than "March 10 is Mario day because Mar 10 looks like Mario. Do Mario related stuff to celebrate." Sources are either very brief and don't offer significant coverage (like this or this) or instantly veer off into general discussion about the Mario franchise. With so little to be said, and its notability entirely entrenched with the franchise, I feel like its best covered as a part of the Mario section. Sergecross73   msg me  16:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mario, which can adequately house whatever needs to be said on this topic. Please wait for an overabundance of coverage specific to the topic before starting separate articles. czar  20:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: IP editor 86.20.193.222 left The following comments on my Talk page, that might be relevant:--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw it on "New Pages" - I didn't write it. I was about to CSD-tag it, but googled to discover it was a real thing with pretty good coverage, and decided to try to fix it up.
 * I don't think it's fair in your AFD nom to say "The coverage is either self-published or passing mentions". Only one of the sources is Nintendo; the others are respectable independent RS - magazines, newspapers, and so forth. I can't see how it is passing mentions, when it is the subject of the articles in those publications - they're not just mentioning it in another article, the articles are *about* it.
 * There's not *that* much to say about this event, but not all Wikipedia articles need to be GA or FA. It's not a single line; it's encyclopaedic, very well-referenced facts, and neutral.
 * Please note, this day is not a promo thing by Nintendo; it existed before they even knew about it. Nintendo are using it to give a bit of money to charity, and are discounting a few of their games - see.
 * There's quite a lot of extra coverage like that, if you look around; but if I put that, I'll probably be accused of 'link spam'. Examples,.
 * AAnyway - I don't think I will be participating in the AFC because yes, I'm disillusioned. Bottom line, it's an encyclopaedia, and I think people might wonder what National Mario Day is. The article answers that, in a neutral, well-referenced way. I do not think it's better to 'merge' it into another article, because it's not about a specific game title, it doesn't fit well.
 * It's a real thing, it's notable, it has significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. It should have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.167.158 (talk • contribs)
 * Right, it exists, and there are sources to prove it, but that doesn't mean it needs a standalone article. When there's very little to be said about something, and its entire claim to notability hinges on an obvious parent subject (Mario), subjects are often merged. To be clear, if we do a "merge/redirect", people will still be able to "read up on Mario Day", its just that, when people search it up, it'll take them to a little blurb about it in the main Mario article instead of this short stub of an article. Also note that the "Mario" article is about the character itself, not the game series, so it would in fact make sense to put the information there. Also, while there are some reliable sources out there, almost every source you listed above would not be reliable in the Wikipedia sense. Websites like "NintendoWire" and "Gamingbits" are all obscure blogs and fan pages. Sergecross73   msg me  14:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really fit into another article, it's a separate topic. It can be mentioned and linked in many - about the game series, etc.
 * If merged, it won't be in categories such as Category:Unofficial observances. It will most likely be de-linked from March 10 too.
 * I know someone will scream 'otherstuff', but honestly, why is this different from Star Wars Day?
 * There are literally hundreds of tiny articles made every day; for example, recently, I've seen lots on species of spiders, Thiratoscirtus harpago, Thiratoscirtus gambari, Thiratoscirtus monstrum, Thiratoscirtus mirabilis...and so on hundreds more . All are 1 sentence. I think that's fine, great, encyclopaedic, and one day someone might want to look up "Thiratoscirtus harpago". But I think it's a LOT more likely someone might hear about "National Mario Day", and want to look that up.
 * Please have a quick look on Google right now; I think you'll find "National Mario Day" shows a large description from "nationaldaycalendar.com". Wouldn't it be better if that was the Wikipedia page?
 * People around the world are having a bit of fun today, dressing as Mario, playing games, raising money for charity and so on, see . 86.20.193.222 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. If merged, the non-free image would be deleted. I think that picture, with the MAR-10 calender, explains the concept to readers in a clearer way than text can.86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Images, category use, what people are doing on social media. None of this has any bearings on deletion discussions. As you even seem to recognize yourself, your reasoning is based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and arguments to avoid. Sergecross73   msg me  15:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 86 predicted someone would call out OTHERSTUFF, and you proved him right. The 4:20 of cannabis culture is another example.  While Star Wars Day and 4:20 may have started as cute notions, they (1) captured the imagination of lots of people; (2) and then reliable sources wrote about them in enough detail to measure up to our inclusion criteria.   When Mario Day grew popular enough that: (1) libraries and other institutions introduced programs to help parents bond with their children on Mario Day; (2) and RS, like the Christian Science Monitor, wrote about it -- Mario Day was pushed over our notability criteria finishing line.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I proved him right, I was right to. Unless there's some documented proof that "Star Wars Day" has survived any sort of deletion discussion or merge discussion, its textbook WP:OSE. Sergecross73   msg me  16:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, but how about a meaningful answer? Are you saying OSE is just a crap shot -- so Star Wars Day and 4:20 snuck under the wire, while, Mario Day, which shares many elements with them, recently started, is still vulnerable to be strangled at its birth...  Geo Swan (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I'm not knowledable with the Star Wars or marijuana fandom. I'd do research, but considering how it'd have no actual bearing on this AFD, I don't really have any interest. Sergecross73   msg me  00:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent". Merge is inappropriate, because it is a distinct topic.86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it distinct from the franchise? Its literally a celebration of the franchise and nothing else. Sergecross73   msg me  15:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mario. Most of the sources are press releases, talk about Mario the character instead of the actual Mario Day Event, or organizations holding an event about the day which do not talk about the event so much as they are a promotion for the company. The sources left are not reliable for establishing separate notability. That said, I agree it is worth a mention in the Mario article. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please forgive my stupidity, but I am very confused by "Most of the sources are press releases". None of them are. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You just added a press release minutes ago. I imagine you're not familiar with what Newswire.ca/CNW Group is then? They're literally a press release company. Sergecross73   msg me  17:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said in the edit-summary, I copied that over from the Mario article - because you'd complained about another reference.
 * What about all the others? The Escapist, 4players, Tristate Update, Star Tribune, Hardcore Gamer, Destructiod, Gamecubicle? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Press Releases can be used to cite basic, objective facts, like sales figures. They just can't be used to prove notability, because proving notability requires third party sourcing, whereas Press Releases are first party accounts. So, you can use them in articles (sparingly, as they're also usually quite promotional in tone/content) but not as a third party account to prove notability. But as Zetta states, being press releases is just one of three issues he found with the sources. The other crucial issue is that the sources say very little of the actual holiday. For example, Hardcore Gamer here is a reliable source. But it doesn't provide significant coverage on Mario Day. Its extremely short and serves mostly as a setup to post a Youtube video created by Nintendo themselves. The Destructoid article is pretty much the same - extremely short, no substance lead up to Nintendo's own video. Sergecross73   msg me  18:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tutorial. I'm glad you conceed that "Most of the sources are press releases" is utterly incorrect; perhaps you could strike it?
 * I'm really not interested in arguing; I've made my points, and you seem to have already made up your mind about this.86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't be sure, since ZettaComposer said it, not me, but I don't think he meant "Most of the sources are press releases" as a stand-alone idea. If you read his whole sentence, (it is rather long) he's saying that most of the sources fall into a number of issues, press releases being the first of many examples listed off. To paraphrase in a shorter, easier to understand manner, I think he meant something more like "Most sources are press releases, stray off-topic from the subject, or are of a promotional manner". Sergecross73   msg me  18:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant. I could have written my original sentence above better. :) ZettaComposer (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes more sense; I'm sorry. I misunderstood or misread, I get it now: you meant like, "Most are X, Y or Z".
 * Look, we're all here to build an encyclopaedia, right? This article is, honestly, not "promotional". Nintendo didn't start this thing (but of course do not object to it!); it's fans of the games, having a bit of fun.
 * There are other sources; more have appeared today. I'm reluctant spend more hours on it though because, right now, it looks like it will be "merged" - which seems to me just as bad as deletion, because it'll end up as a single sentence in the other article. People won't be able to expand it, most people won't even know about it. I'm convinced there is plenty for a short article; I'd be happy to remove anything that wasn't considered a reliable source. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Articles for Deletion, like many areas of Wikipedia, has a tendency to bring out the best in people. :) I would not worry though. As Sergecross mentioned earlier in the discussion, if this article is merged then a redirect can be created. People can reach the merged content by typing in "National Mario Day" in the search box, and that will take them to the section on National Mario Day in the Mario article. That section of the Mario article can then be edited and expanded. If enough reliable sources appear in the future for this article to stand on its own, then this article can be recreated. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand about a 'redirect', but - apart from that not letting people expand it - it means the image will be deleted, and I think that does help explain it. Also, it'd not be in categories like Category:Unofficial observances, or linked from March 10. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're overestimating the importance of categories here. They're really not that big of a deal or that prominently viewed. The image...isn't really all that big of a deal either, but that being said, it could also be argued that it could be added to the "Legacy" section of the Mario article too. Sergecross73   msg me  22:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for undoing an outdent someone put in here. I found it confusing, as it interfered with me putting my replies to earlier comments at the right level of indentation.... , I see your defence of , and I wonder whether it wouldn't be better if you based the opinion you voiced here on the notability of the topic, not on your opinion on the current state of the article's references...  Deletion is supposed to be based on the notability of the topic itself, meaning, we should keep and tag for improvement a weak article when the underlying topic measures up to our notability criteria.  I just checked WP:BEFORE, and found it only advises those considering becoming nominators to do their own search for references, before they made a nomination for deletion.  BEFORE doesn't explicitly advise those weighing in with an opinion at AFD to make sure it is an informed opinion.  IMO it should, extend this advice to everyone considering weighing in.   I did my own web search, found  additional references that weren't press releases, or articles published in publications devoted to Nintendo, and included some.  This topic itself is notable.  RS make it notable.  That shoule be all that is required for us to voice a "keep", not a "delete" or "merge".  Geo Swan (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have some additional advice for you. You are engaging in an activity here which can very highly erode other contributors ability to AGF.  You are both (1) weighing in here with delete opinions; (2) editing the article.  By weighing in here, with a delete opinion, means you don't think the article can be improved by editing to the point of measuring up to our standards.  You have voiced your concerns, here, that the article references fall short.  So why would you be removing references, and removing whole paragraphs, as you did in these edits?   I have no real dog in this fight.  But when good faith contributors have worked hard on an article on a topic they feel strongly merits inclusion, it is best for the project if they are allowed a free hand to try to bear in mind the concerns voiced in the AFD, and work to address them, during the AFD period.   Unless you are excising actual slander, why, in heavens' name, would you edit an article you are on record is hopeless, and can't be improved.  If it is really hopeless it will soon be deleted, and those weaknesses won't matter.   I don't have a dog in this fight, but I assure you, when I am making a strong effort to improve an article, during the AFD, and someone who voiced a "delete" is also still editing the article, it is a great strain to continue to AGF.  Why would you put your fellow good faith contributors under this unnecessary strain?   What happens if the AFD then closes as "delete"?  Those who worked hard to take the concerns voiced in the AFD into account can't help thinking: "Grrr.  If SergeCross73 hadn't edit warred with me I could have improved the article enough that it would have closed as "keep".   So, please, if you voiced a "delete", hands-off the article, OK?  Geo Swan (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I find your comments baffling for a number of reasons. Your criticisms don't make any sense:
 * I defended Zetta's comments because they were misinterpreted by the IP editor. This is something Zetta confirmed as true, and the IP now understands they misunderstood. What is wrong with this exchange? I helped solve a misunderstanding.
 * I don't know why you'd lecture me about nominating and BEFORE. I did not nominate this article, or encourage anyone to do so. I've also made many comments about how weak the sourcing is, and how many/most proposed are either unreliable, or do not constitute significant coverage.
 * I thought my edit summaries were quite clear, and expressed valid points. This edit was made because they had nothing to do with the subject. It would also be more accurately described as "two unrelated sentences" than "a paragraph" as you suggested. When I was reverted, I did not edit war, but rather, started a talk page discussion, where the IP has refused to engage in discussion, despite being the one to suggest it in the first place. I did not edit war - I removed it once, and did not revert again. Additionally, I later made this edit because I had expressed that it was an unreliable source, and the IP, addressing this, had already added another source to replace it, but forgotten to remove it. All valid actions.
 * Overall, the entire premise of your "You voted delete so keep your hands off the article" is ludicrous. My stance is Merge, not Delete, and there is no such rule. I'm free to make any good-faith edits to the article as the AFD goes on. I felt that the IP was bloating the article with off-topic content to avoid a merge conclusion.
 * The irony in all of this is all of your AGF lectures, when you haven't done the least for me. There's no bad faith here whatsoever. I'm very active in creating and maintaining Mario and Nintendo related things on Wikipedia. There's no ill-will or bias going on here. I just don't believe there's enough here to warrant a standalone article. Which doesn't seem that crazy considering how many "Merge" !votes we've got going here. Sergecross73   msg me  15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mario. I think everyone above has pretty much covered it. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak Merge  - I had seen this AfD earlier but hadn't really taken the time to look into it.... then I got a newsletter from Nintendo themselves advertising MAR10 DAY, so I thought "okay, it's a thing now, let's look at it" -- and the biggest problem I can think of is that we don't know if it's just this year, or if it will become a yearly event. If it becomes recurrent we can spin it back out at a later time. Otherwise I would actually merge it to List of non-video game media featuring Mario, even though the description of "a celebratory date" as "media" is kind of iffy I guess. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Two of the references show that it's from at least 2014 . It's already annual. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Amending my position per the sustained coverage in RSes over multiple years. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mario. Per other "Merge" reasons. Yoshi24517 Chat  Online 04:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge - we don't need to fork every little PR event / fan stunt. Brianga (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- there is sufficient RS coverage to meet our inclusion criteria. Sorry, but I have to wonder how many of those weighing in here actually took a look at the references.  The Christian Science Monitor focussed an article around how Mario Day was an opportunity for parents to bond with their children, and named Mario Day events parents could take their children to -- in 2014.   We are not supposed to weigh in on AFDs based on whether we personally think a topic is trivial, or silly.  We should base our opinion on whether the professional editors and professional authors we rely on -- at WP:RS -- think a topic is worth writing about.  Well, if you look, you see serious RS have written about this topic.  That is all that is required.  A delete based on a personal opinion the topic is trivial or silly is one of the arguments named in WP:Arguments to avoid -- WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Geo Swan (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a single person has made an IDONTLIKEIT argument. The clear consensus arising is that the subject does not receive enough dedicated coverage, dedicated specifically to the subject. There are very few sources that aren't extremely short or veer off into general discussion of the Mario franchise right away. There's very few sources that say very little about the actual subject. A "Merge" conclusion is a completely valid, policy-based conclusion to come to. You're free to disagree with that conclusion, but its outright wrong to say its not a policy based conclusion.  Sergecross73   msg me  16:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you can say there's not "enough dedicated coverage", when almost all the referenced articles are entirely about the subject.
 * There are hundreds of 1-line articles created every day with a single reference; why does this one need merging? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't significant coverage. They're either extremely short, or stray from the subject. Like your Metro source. Anyone who reads through the article can see that literally only the first 2 sentences of the source discuss the holiday. All of the rest of the article are just random generic Mario factoids. It's almost entirely about Mario itself, not the holiday. Sergecross73   msg me  16:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge - to Mario (franchise) or Mario per above. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The part about "Italians in Chicago" explains the term was used in the 80s for an an annual gala dinner. Absolutely nothing to do with Nintendo.
 * Thus, it would be entirely inappropriate on an article about the Nintendo franchise, but entirely relevant to an article about the annual holiday. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we'd just remove that stuff on the merge process, which is original research to have in the article right now to begin with, unless you've got sources showing any connection towards the subject and these random factoids. Sergecross73   msg me  16:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The oh-so-subtle connection is that it's about an annual event, on March 10th, called "Mario Day", because of MAR-10 looking like Mario. It is about the subject of this article 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is Nintendo's Mario Day, not "every holiday on March 10th" or "Every instance of people pointing out March 10th looks like Mario". If it's relevant, you should have no problem providing a source proving the connection to the actual subject. Sergecross73   msg me  22:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mario. This is notable, but it doesn't really need its own article.  TheJoebro64   talk 06:48 PM, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to meet any of the 'reasons' in WP:MERGEREASON. That page also says avoid merging if "topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short". It's not that short. If it's notable, why force it into another article? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One reason it should be merged is that it isn't an actual holiday; it seems to me to be some sort of Twitter or Instagram thing or hashtag. It'd work good as part of Mario's impact and legacy, but it really should only have a page if the President declares it a national holiday. I highly doubt he will...  TheJoebro64   talk 09:58 PM, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's only claim to notability is tightly entrenched to the parent article - Mario. With like half of the already short current stub just being general Mario factoids, it'd be better covered in the main Mario article. Sergecross73   msg me  23:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Mario. Doesn't yet seem to have had either the broad coverage or commercial exploitation described in the Star Wars Day article. --McGeddon (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mario. It has coverage in secondary sources, but not notability independent of the Mario franchise. Imalawyer (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2017 (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.