Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Kid Icarus


 * 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   delete. The relevant policy for sources is WP:RS, specifically WP:USERG. Generally blogs are not considered reliable sources, although there are some exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Super Kid Icarus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable, reads as an advertisement, and uses low-level blogs and forums as sources, which do no meet standards for reliable sources. Also note that search for news sources of "Super Kid Icarus" returns no results. AndrewTindall (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Super Kid Icarus is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject thus it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
 * Super Kid Icarus Notability Analysis
 * "Significant coverage" - Idealsoft, a popular Italian gaming blog wrote an entire article about the game.  The article address the game directly and in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content.  The entire article is about Super Kid Icarus.  The game was chosen as an editors pick on Games for Gamers.
 * "Reliable" - The sources are reliable and under Wikipedia guidelines may encompass published works in all forms.
 * "Sources" - Has multiple secondary sources and sources are not required to be in English.
 * "Independent of the subject" - Page does not contain any self published content and includes verifiable links to sources.
 * "Presumed" - Per above, the article is presumed to be allowable for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)  — PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.
 * Overview of the AFD deletion process

You are proposing a deletion for a reason other than stated above for which the article is in compliance and a AFD was not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertSanchis3 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — AlbertSanchis3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I dispute that the sources are reliable as defined by wikipedia, I also assert that as a spam-style article for a flash game, the article indeed fails to meet notability guidelines which is a reason for deletion.--AndrewTindall (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is a perfectly fine reason for deletion, there is no requirement that an article can only be deleted if it fails compliance with the above policies. Of course, as it is difficult to prove a negative (that sources don't exist about the topic as the nom has outlined), we have that open for discussion at AFD. --M ASEM  (t) 17:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Searches for "Super Kid Icarus" return an entire page of results..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueBlaze2009 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)  — Blueblaze2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In reading the Wikipedia article for advertisement, Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. Could you help us understand where you see "sales oriented language" and you will also note that Super Kid Icarus, and the link thereof, is a non-commercial website. Did you know that a spam tag is a useful "first warning" to put on the Talk page of a spammer, if that is what you felt? Also, if you felt it read as an advertisement did you first try to edit the article to read less like an advertisement and/or solicit help using tags before requesting deletion with a tag and now on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) 14 September 2011 — PeterAmbrosia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Advertisement Concerns


 * Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Current sourcing in the article has no reliable sources.  Blogs, forums, and personal pages are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No notability, and whatever popularity it has (if any) is directly inherited. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  19:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I am a little confused here. I am new to Wikipedia and read the notability page entirely and provided an outline of how I feel the page complies with it.  People are saying blogs do not count, even if they have sufficient coverage and are independent, however I am really have trouble finding this rule.  All rules that seemed applicable were thoroughly read and it seemed it was ok to make the article.  Can someone please help me understand what went wrong here?  What is considered a "reliable" page?  And why is Idealsoft specifically not "reliable" as in what indicates it is biased towards the game or created by the owner of the site?  Self sourced material is included for the story because the page on how to make pages for games said that should be sourced from the manual etc.  Was that wrong and if so, where does it say that?  Guess I am just really confused with all this and trying to keep up.  Also, can someone please tell me how to sign my signature so I stop getting all these unsigned things?  I assure there is no malice there, just don't know how to do it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess could someone show why my analysis of notability, as taken directly from the wikipedia page about notability is wrong or what about it is wrong, with specifics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be looking for (a) print sources which reviewed the game and/or (b) rankings. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2011 (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.