Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party Ball

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete (N.B. article could not be deleted due to technical limitations). Rje 21:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Party Ball
Should we encourage more of these articles in the future, or is the entire Category:Nintendo items full of entirely non-notable contributions? Google returns 106 unique matches. --GRider\talk 18:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep, or Merge if appropriate. Xezbeth  20:16, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per the others. Meelar (talk) 20:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vote, Meelar. In your opinion, what makes a Nintendo Party Ball encyclopedic after taking into consideration the low hit count on Google?   --GRider\talk 21:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears in a well-known franchise; someone has already written an encyclopedic article about it; and the content, while it could be merged elsewhere, would not mix well with other items (such as Freezie, which you've also nominated.) Meelar (talk) 07:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for your expeditious response. Based upon the logic you're using, would it then be safe to say that any trivial topic which pertains to a well-known parent topic is deserving of its own article if it is too large for the parent article?    If not, where do you draw the line and how?  --GRider\talk 17:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be a fairly accurate summation, yes. Obviously, I apply a certain reasonablenesss criterion that's necessarily somewhat idiosyncratic, but I suspect that I'm hardly alone amongst Vfd regulars in doing that. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 18:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * See Super_Mario_Bros._3 - Merge all items related to the same game into one article for easy comparison. In this case, that would be Super Smash Bros. Radiant! 20:40, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep them. Items in games are necessary to adequate coverage. Merging or keeping should depend on size, fame and whether they appear in just one game or many. For example, pokeballs are famous, have a big article, and have been on TV etc, so keep separate. In Party Ball's case, the main article is already 36k, so it would be best to split out all the items (there are 31) into a separate page and merge this with it. Kappa 21:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this one. Unlike the others, this is specific to a single game (at least according to the article) and thus not part of the larger Nintendo mythos.  Would consider keeping if it starts showing up in more games. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  22:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, gamecruft. Wyss 22:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreed, gamecruft. -- Cleduc 02:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do not merge this gamecruft. ComCat 03:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable - 106 hits for a game isnt all that notable, nintendocruft. Megan1967 06:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Super Smash Bros. Melee. Andre ( talk ) 22:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gamecruft. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)