Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario Bros. Crossover (2nd 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. Crossover
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

While this game has received media coverage, it fails all of the notability guidelines. Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - No rationale is given as to why the unanimous consensus reached in the previous AfD is not valid anymore; also no specific reason given in nomimator as to what would make this non-notable or what notability guideline it fails, nor how it fails them. The game has received significant coverage in independant, reliable sources and the urrent referencing in the article more than appropriately reflects that. "Notability guidelines" are all about "media coverage"; the nomination's statement makes as much sense as saying "This small landmass is completely surrounded by water, however it is clearly not an island."  Salvidrim!   00:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Salvidrim. Sources already present in the article show that it meets the general notability guideline. Sure, there aren't any 10-page analyses of the game present, but it has received adequate coverage nonetheless. CtP  (t • c) 00:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Don't judge an article by its short description. Sure, "Flash-based Mario game on Newgrounds" doesn't sound notable, but sourcing for this one clearly proves otherwise. --BDD (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Salvidrim and BDD. May not sound notable, but has third-party sources.  Zappa  O  Mati   03:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  Northamerica1000(talk) 09:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Passes WP: GNG as thereare ample reliable, 3rd party sources listed. Electric Catfish 16:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - Six reliable sources listed, and no real rationale give for deletion. --Teancum (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep More than enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. --M ASEM (t) 01:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per having the WP:RS's to meet the WP:GNG, nominator failed to check WP:BEFORE, lack of real nomination rationale, WP:SNOW, etc etc.  Sergecross73   msg me   01:55, 24 July 2012 (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.