Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Adventure

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 consesus conclusion of this AFD appears to be that this subject is not verifiable with no reliable sources (blogs are not reliable sources, nor is anecdotal evidence). Anything after we have determined violations of WP:V and WP:RS is not relevant. This is more a problem with reliable media sources not wishing to cover these type of games (probably for the reasons mentioned by SevereTireDamage) than with the notability of the subject. Wickethewok 10:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fan made game, a ROM hack. Since when are ROM hacks notable? A similar discussion is going on at Pokemon Brown, for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodoodoo (talk • contribs)

• Delete per WP:NN. All ROM hacks should suffer the same fate >:) Thε Halo ^Θ 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NN is not a guideline or policy. You also seem very biased against them. --172.198.201.49 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ROM hacks, like fanfic stories, are inherently nn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above comment. However, I must add that fanfiction usually doesn't recieve much attention; however, this ROM Hack has achieved notice on several sites, including joystiq. --172.198.201.49 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Withdrawing and entering No Vote Danny Lilithborne 01:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per my comments in Pokémon Brown AfD. We need tangible proof of this thing's popularity... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally keep. It's one of the most popular rom hacks of all time. I mean look at these remarks: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Mario+Adventure%22+hack

http://www.creationrobot.com/2006/02/mario-adventure-the-best-nes-game-hack-of-all-time "The Best NES Game Hack of All Time?"... This is by far the best Mario hack ever, if not the best Mario game ever.

http://www.vintagecomputing.com/index.php/archives/63 "The Best NES Game Hack of All Time?"

The rom community is abuzz! It's really a damn shame an article like this can't be displayed because of someone's "NON NOTABLE" viewpoint,(which isn't even an official wikipedia policy) when it's just about as popular as any rom hack can come. What else is needed here? Toastypk 03:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Print mentions? Even mentions in BIG gaming sites, not just some random blogs? Jubilations from Nintendo themselves? Congratulations from notable figures in the industry? Regrettably, it's hard to get people excited about a fan hack... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep As described in the article it is virually a different game. not just a hack —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dean randall (talk • contribs) .
  • Which is no reason to keep the article. I could invent a version of chess with exploding pieces, but no one would still make an article about it. If the entire chess world would concur that this version is indeed a novel approach to the game, well, that would be article-worthy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep please some rom hacks are notable like this one Yuckfoo 04:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Whispering 22:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Newspaper98 20:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then could somebody explain my sources? You have your sources, what else do you need? Toastypk 05:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What is with the sudden holy war against rom-hacks? If you're going to delete one of the most popular rom-hacks of all time from Wikipedia, you may as well just delete the "Rom-hack" article itself. Shadic 20:51, 31 July 2006.
  • The user has 13 edits. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of the most well-respected rom hacks ever released and has enough significance, given its popularity on the Internet, to warrant an entry. I agree that not every hack made should be mentioned on Wikipedia; only the select few that are the cream of the crop and have made an impact on the rom hacking scene in some way should be indexed. Colin 04:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user has 23 edits since January 2005. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since when aren't ROM hacks notable? For that matter, if ROM hacks aren't notable, why is any non-commerical product notable? Why isn't the Cave Story page pending deletion then? Just because it wasn't created via manipulation of a ROM? There are enough people active in ROM hacking to afford the consensus best hacks a page. This is one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.204.239 (talk • contribs)

• Keep - this is a prime example of the best of the best when it comes to ROM Hacking. Why not just delete that article too? --172.198.201.49 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability (or lack thereof) does not appear to be a valid reason for deleting an article; or, at least, a few hours browing the various policies and guidelines make no mention of it, other than it having never been made into a real policy... though it does make mention of many WPers abusing it as if it was so. Hm. --172.198.201.49 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But notability guidelines are frequently cited in deletion debates as reasonings behind the feelings of individual editors. The notability guidelines summarise the "gut feelings" of many, many editors, and as such, they do have weight in deletion debates. It beats having a long, dull library of precedents. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this doesn't fulfil Wikipedia's criteria for deleting articles. I don't see any reason why each and every ROM hack in existence couldn't have its own page. They don't violate the policy on pages, so where's the harm? --145.229.156.40 11:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I feel as if this ROM hack has received enough attention to merit an article on Wikipedia. I think it would be better off with some sort of expansion - such as references, listings of media attention (WITH references), general cleanup, etc. --GUTTERTAHAH 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this hack is famous, having been mentioned in gaming magazines and large game-related web sites. It's practically a whole new game and nearly commercial quality. I do agree that sources are needed and that few hacks deserve their own page, but this one is famous enough that it does. 64.231.193.187 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep This is one of the few hacks I've heard much about, years ago - it actually is one of the most famous hacks. As always mentioned on these ROM hack AfDs, it's really hard to judge the notability of these hacks since most legitimate news sources won't cover these things, partially because of their questionable legality, and most magazine or sites won't risk appearing to condone it. Crazy Ottos don't really happen anymore. In addition, some larger blogs have mentioned it (Kotaku, Digg), though I am speaking much from my own anedcotal exposure to when the hack came out. --SevereTireDamage 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see why hacks should be automatically treated as non-admissable. From the article it appears the game has merit and is sufficiently different to its source material to make it individually notable. Mallanox 00:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. RobJ1981 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This hack's received plenty of mainstream gaming coverage, I'd say it's notable enough. I do agree with GUTTERTAHAH's assertion that it should be expanded/cleaned up a touch, though. --Drjayphd 17:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -Same reason as above. Apofisu 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as per abbove reasoning. The media coverage seems to make it "notable enough", although not by much. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 04:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Drjayphd. Havok (T/C/c) 12:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.