Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario War (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. Siliconera is clearly reliable, and as Imgaril points out, it is standard practice to have a legal disclaimer. The situation on the blogs is less clear, but it should be noted that blogs are not inherently unreliable. Overall there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Regarding the copyright issues, editors may later decide to remove possibly infringing portions, but that does not affect the notability of the subject. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario War
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has only two sources and fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  02:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - A completely non-notable freeware game. -- NINTENDUDE 64 02:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Nintendude64.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They're all download links and fan art.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep I found a long review at About.com, news at Siliconera, and an review/analysis at MakeUseOf. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep About.com lets anyone load things up I believe, so that doesn't count. Siliconera is used in 453 articles.  Seems like a reliable source.  Makeuseof seems notable as well.  Good work Odie5533, you saved the day.   D r e a m Focus  05:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's also coverage at Kotaku. --Teancum (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As ever, DreamFocus makes a convincing case. Good finds with the sources Teancum and Odie5533! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    19:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Siliconera self declares as unreliable. Makeuseof and Kotaku are blog sites, and we use such sites with care - WP:BLOGS. I see that there is evidence that this game exists, though am not reassured by the quality of the coverage that the game has achieved enough notability to require an entry in Wikipedia. It is not listed at Allgame or Gamerankings. Why is this barely mentioned game considered notable?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Both Kotaku and Siliconera are used in featured articles here on Wikipedia:
 * Siliconera was defended in FAC for Final Fantasy XIII, 2011 and has been referenced by IGN, 1UP.com, 1UP.com, 1UP.com, Kotaku, ShackNews, ShackNews, EuroGamer, ArsTechnica, EuroGamer, EuroGamer, EuroGamer, EuroGamer.
 * Kotaku is used in over 1,600 articles on Wikipedia including many featured articles such as Portal (video game), Halo 3: ODST, Okami, BioShock, and Shadow of the Colossus.
 * I don't consider allgame or gamerankings important indicators of notability, and only allgame can be used to support notability anyways. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment the issue "wp does not allow blogs" is a common error - wikipedia does not allow self-published sources as reliable - such sources are commonly presented as blogs. (WP:BLOGS is redirect to Verifiability) - there are no rules or guidelines that penalise a blog format as a reliable source. Kotaku is a professional game site which can be displayed in blog format, it is not self published. You can say it inherits design and style decisions from blogs. You see that the site has a full staff complement here http://kotaku.com/about/ Imgaril (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification. My comment above is that we use blogs with care. The wording is: "open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." When looking for notability as opposed to simply verifiability, the more reliable and respectable the site appears, the more confident I feel. As this game does not appear to be covered or mentioned in the major game listing sites, and has no reviews in more orthodox publications, then I have little confidence in its notability. As the sites that are used in this article mix open blogging with some editorial control does not help matters. As there is such doubt, I am neither supporting nor opposing - merely making an observation that the sources raise questions, and I would prefer more significant evidence of notability. I hope that helps.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  15:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The author of the Kotaku piece is John Brownlee - a well known video game blogger. That is an interesting piece of information.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  15:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - As always, the ARS folk just tally up whatever's out there without actually evaluating if the sources are reliable or not. Blogs do not establish notability.  One Kotaku entry does not meet the notability threshold.  One also has to consider that the game itself is an obvious copyright infringement, and we do have policies that address linking to such information. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith and stop attacking the ARS constantly please. Makeuseof is a reliable site, and the article is written by a guy whose name is listed at the bottom section under "MakeUseOf Staff Authors".  And I originally said delete  do to copyright violations, but as someone pointed out that's all fan made art work.  Also the game isn't really like any Mario Brothers, other than some similarities which you find in other platform games as well.  If Nintendo had a problem with it, they'd sue, as they always do for such things.  If they didn't copyright yellow boxes with a question mark on them, or other aspects used there as registered trademarks, then nothing illegal has been done.    D r e a m Focus  21:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See comment above. If you have a problem with the content of the article, please bring it up on the talk page. Also, to Dream Focus, all the colors in your signatures makes it hard to know where your comment ends. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep-ish I believe Siliconera's attempt to protect itself from lawsuits does not make it unreliable. Work by a staff writer on a site with editors and the like is also likely reliable.  The "ish" part is that I'm really unclear on the copyright issue here.  I'd think the product has to be infringing.  I don't think being a (potential) copyright violation should stop us from covering an otherwise notable topic, but I honestly don't know if any policy or guideline adresses the issue. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: Siliconera Claiming that a legal disclaimer is equivalent to a statement of unreliability is complete nonsense and should be ignored. All sites do this IGN Eurogamer Game Informer all make essentially identical disclaimers that they make no guarantee of accuracy of information. It's a standard disclaimer. I see no reason why Siliconera should not be taken as a reliable source just as IGN, Gamespot etc are. Imgaril (talk) 12:22, 25 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.