Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Smash Bros. Crusade (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 delete.  Sandstein  21:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Crusade
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about a fanmade game that hasn't received notability/coverage for similar projects such as Super Smash Flash or Project M. The article is poorly written, talks more about the soundtrack of the game than the game itself, and was only decided as "Speedy keep" in its first nomination for deletion because the nomination was withdrawn sans discussion. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yes, it has coverage in sources. It needs substantial coverage in reliable sources. What's there now is entirely WP:SPS. Unable to find needed coverage. Simply not notable. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Super Smash Flash isn't doing too hot either. Not a whole lot of obvious RS coverage in that article presently. As for this article, there is also a Kotaku review, besides the two SiliconEra items in the article. Maybe there's scope for a Super Smash Bros. fan games article, or a small section (which there definitely should be per WP:SUMMARY) in Super Smash Bros.. I'm somewhere between a "merge" and a "delete" with this one. --Izno (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'd need some real convincing that a fan-made project meets notability standards; it's not like a release from a major publisher, where one can assume that some amount of independent sourcing exists, though it may not be enough to meet notability standards. This article simply does not establish the subject's notability.--NukeofEarl (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2018 (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.