Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario Bros. Crossover


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. Crossover

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

It is about an unnotable online flash game and it is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I Feel Tired (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * General Keep - though open to other suggestions. Several points:
 * Flash games are generally non-notable, since they are equivalent of self-published sources. However, some flash games do attract attention of gaming media to make reliable coverage.  SMBX qualifies with sources from Wired, Game Informer, and Entertainment Weekly, among others.
 * Flash games also are often topics that have temporary notability - they are big when announced and then coverage disappears within a few weeks.  In the case of SMBX, there has been continuing coverage of the game with the recent update to include an additional character and seemingly continued support by its creator. It is exhibiting the same behavior of a long tail that I'd expect to see for any other video game - just at a much smaller scale w.r.t. sources.
 * So while I think this should be kept, I do see also some issues that wouldn't prevent me from agreeing to an alternate solution that retains the information. --M ASEM  (t) 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * keep - multiple third party seemingly reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - covered on several major gaming sites, including refs provided (which are reliable) and Kotaku. Passes WP:GNG. --Teancum (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above: has multiple independent RS'es, overcoming the presumption that such games are NN. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and please ask people next time. Jumping straight to the last-ditch option that is deletion causes all sorts of avoidable unpleasantness. I know that a lot of editors make deletion nominations first and see if they were founded later, but that's because they're dumb and smell bad. --Kiz o r  14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this game is indeed extremely notable. WCityMike 23:04, 14 July 2010 (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.