Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (3 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   keep. Wizardman 19:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Secret Maryo Chronicles
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Absolute lack of notability. It has been deleted twice and restored once on the basis that the article's contents in the new version are different from the original deleted article. However, it is not different enough to solve the major problems such as notability. Fact of the matter is that fan-made games such as this have a higher standard of notability, so having none is simply unacceptable. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, however in addition to this article SuperTux may also need to be nominated, as it falls under the same failings, and we want inexperienced Wikipedia editors to feel it's a fair treatment so that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't become an issue. --Teancum (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Per and . Seems to pass WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete one of a zillion freeware Mario clones. Sorry, but a mention on an Australian blog just isn't going to carry an article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hardly consider the website of APC (magazine) an "Australian blog", not to mention that there is another article on the website of Stern (magazine) as well. Tim Song (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tim Song.Actual 3rd party coverage, even though it's fan-made. Polarpanda (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Being fan-made doesn't make something non-notable. However, it lies in the low number of this third party coverage. After so many years of existence, I've seen little proof that this fan game got those sources from long-term notability and not from being noticed and quickly forgotten. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. Once notable, always notable. Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since apparently no one bothered notifying the previous AfD and DRV participants - or indeed the author of the latest version of the article - I have done it. All participants of the previous AFDs and DRV who have not commented here have been notified, with the exception of a few SPAs and one blocked user. If I missed anyone, it was purely unintentional. Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tim Song UltraMagnusspeak 07:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Andrevan@ 08:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When the notability of an article is in question, we have a test that we apply: is there non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source? This test is simple, objective and clear, and as Wikipedian guidelines go, it is also old and strong.  Tim Song has provided two reliable sources, and the coverage does not appear to be trivial, so the test is passed. The General Notability Guideline is of central importance to Wikipedia.  It is what enables content contributors to decide for themselves whether material is suitable for inclusion; in other words, the GNG is what lets writers create material without going through a committee process first. Because of that, I think that passing the GNG is a bright-line inclusion criterion, and I think we need extraordinarily strong reasons to disregard it.  I do not see that any such strong reasons apply here.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tim Song, and .  Whenever recommendations are being made it lifts the coverage beyond trivial, in my opinion, even if there isn't much written about the actual subject. Dpmuk (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, particularly after new sources have been linked above. Concerning nominating rationale; Saying it was deleted twice before is quite a red herring in the special case of this article. Where the first was a different article deleted after an AfD of questionable consensus and a closer leaving no rationale, and the second deletion being done in odd circumstances and then overturned? I'd say that it's basically the first AfD round for this article trying to hold itself on Wikipedia. The DRV particularly mentioned the possibility of a later AfD, and there are quite appropriate concerns raised. The only other thing I can offer as more statement of notability would be the coverage in multiple languages... though I know breadth of article isn't automatically part of notability criteria, I think it's at least encouraging toward it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:48, 22 December 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.