Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario Bros. Z

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: no reliable sources, no assertion of notability. Krimpet (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario Bros. Z

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Super Mario Bros. Z (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Looks to be some animations created by fans of these video game/animated series. Problem is that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of notability. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Why delete it? Is it dragging away people from this site? I doubt it. This site shouldn't delete it because of it not being notable. It's a very popular series on Newgrounds, and a lot of people view it on youtube. It is getting very popular, and this article isn't hurting the site, but should be helping the series. No reason for deletion. DON'T DELETE!!!!!!!!

-EBboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.134.28 (talk)

  • If you have to ask why delete it, then not only did you not read my statement above, you also didn't read through this AfD. The answers are herein. I am not giving the answer again. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I find no reason to delete this article. The series has already made its popularity accross the internet, and Newgrounds has already placed their eye on the series. In addition, if you check out video sites such as YouTube, you will see that they partially contain the episodes for the series. Sure, I'm just an obnoxious person that nobody has to listen to, so Wikipedia knows what's best for the wiki itself. I don't see how an article like this can be deleted. And if this is the case, I don't see why WikiPedia hasn't already deleted a few articles that promote web sites such as Serebii.net, and Smogon.com themselves. What's so good about them anyway?

-Faltzer—Preceding unsigned comment added by Faltzer (talk • contribs)

Having searched for those 2 sites within wikipedia, I found Serebii.net and Smogon.com are used as references to articles related to Pokemon. The general consensus is that all those pages are notable according to the notability of fiction guidelines.--Kylohk 20:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete it. This series has been rated front page on Newgrounds for all 5 episodes, and an highly anticipated 6th episode. Furthermore, they've been uploaded to Youtube, where over 2000 viewers suscribed to the uploader. The creator of Newgrounds has talked with the creator of the series (Mark Haynes) and they've even considered the series gets it's own page on Newgrounds. The series is truly a masterful blend of action, storyline, and art.

~Private Zulen (From the forums)



Screw you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.217.180 (talk)

  • Delete per nom. I also wouldn't be opposed to speedy via CSD#A7. This page consists almost entirely of description of the series, and the only claims of notability are it's allegedly large fanbase and fansite, neither of which constitutes a reliable and verifiable claim of notability. Someguy1221 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete The article gives an idea of the series popularity, providing the number of views and rewards it has recieved on Newgrounds
  • Speedy delete Sockpuppetry, the assumption of bad faith, and lack of notability in the world of Wikipedia is criteria, in my opinion, for an unchallenged deletion.--WaltCip 13:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And what would those regulations be?

  • Delete Non notable flash series.--カラム 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete Keep it. Super Mario Bros Z is highly regarded as excellent across the Internet. Wikipedia should be more generous. Article criteria?! Bah. Wikipedia is supposed to be the FREE Encyclopedia, not the 'if this isn't something we like, remove it' Encyclopedia. Has it done anything wrong? Exactly. ~Jack Rowsell~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.105.67.90 (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
  • — 91.105.67.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WaltCip 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it is also not a collection of indiscrimate information, a blog, a web directory, or a collection of non-noteworthy neologisms.--WaltCip 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I already requested not to delete, so I just want to say that we should have a page for web animations that are notable but not notable enough to be their own articles. and as an addendum, to give an idea of the popularity of the series, here are links to all the episodes Newgrounds pages.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/308690

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/314226

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/323940

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/339499

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/363800

Notice how every one of them has over half a million views —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.71.44 (talk • contribs)

  • OK. It means that there have been over 500,000 page requests of those individual pages. How is that notable, and how is that reliable? Considering that I can just run wget in an infinite loop to access a page and gain a similar effect, Wikipedia really can't consider a webhit count to be reliable as a source of notability, nor can it be considered verifiable. Not saying you would, but the point is that it can be done - and therefore it's not usable for the purpose. Check those links for what we consider to be per regulations here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And what are the regulations that I should check for? And what would be undeniable proof of notability?74.75.71.44 10:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I already linked to them. Read the links in my previous message to you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Lack of external media coverage or any other reliable mentions makes the subject not notable enough. The game may be on Newgrounds, but how can you guarantee that it is widely visited on multiple sites with similar content to NG?--Kylohk 11:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont Delete - This animation has had millions of views on newgrounds , does that not give it credibility.— 142.167.26.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WaltCip 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Apart from the fact that there is clearly sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry in the works, no, a million views on Newgrounds does not give it credibility, otherwise there would be almost every nonnotable Newgrounds Flash and video up here. If you desperately want this Flash up, I suggest you go here.--WaltCip 15:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete - Ok, if some of you guys say that Super Mario Bros. Z isn't noticible as much, why won't you guys Google Super Mario Bros. Z for once before making this idiotic deletion thing for it. Not only that it's noticible on Newgrounds, it's also noticable on YouTube, Jetstream, and other forms of video sites that are spin-offs to YouTube. Once you search SMBZ on Google, the results will come back with more than 25,000. Besides, there will always be articles being made by fans, isn't that one of the main things what Wikipedia was created in the first place? If it isn't, then all of us shouldn't be on here in the first place. Jn314 16:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)aka NessMasta — Jn314 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WaltCip 18:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't Delete -This is very well known flash-animation so I don´t see any point deleting this. You can easily find information about series and episodes of this flash, links to fan page and where to watch this animation. So I say don´t delete this! Esa Nalle — Esa Nalle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Someguy1221 21:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment This is ridiculous. We are being bombed by single-purpose accounts. Doesn't this attribute a speedy deletion?--WaltCip 21:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The notability (or more accurately, lack thereof) must be kept independent of the actions of the contributors. What they should be aware of, however, is that this is not a vote, this is a discussion on the notability of the article. Simply repeating the same unfounded argument over and over isn't going to sway whatever admin closes this case. Someguy1221 21:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. If this article gets deleted than i am throughly disappointed in wikipedia. This a very real , very popular , and very good flash series. For every existance there must be an explanation. Why not explain this valid existance on wikipedia? I myself have never watched the series so i support this from a view of logic and not a fan's view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.26.125 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC).— 142.167.26.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Someguy1221 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. If you feel this is a notable subject, find an independent, reliable source confirming that. Please look at WP:Notability (web), WP:RS, and WP:V for more information. Someguy1221 22:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I cannot give you a write up on the series which is what you want. Your ignoring my other points on the debate and falling back on the one you disagree. So a written link on notability no , but proof should be 1500 suscribers on youtube , 2100 members at a forum dedicated to smbz , a chatroom filled with 30 people all the time , a fan site which garners thousands of hits a day. The proof is before you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.26.125 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
        • Comment. As we have already explained to you, neither of these passes muster as a reliable or verifiable form of notability. Someguy1221 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's a helpful hint. If this flash series is popular, has it been mentioned in any animation expositions, and has it been reviewed by a third party website? I've seen websites that specialize in reviewing flash games. If you can find at least one, it will meet the criterion of WP:RS.--Kylohk 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete this one please it looks like maybe a hoax yuckfoo 00:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not a hoax, it's real. It's just not notable by Wikipedia standards. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

-Don't Delete This series is very popular, has a large fanbase, has won numerous awards on newgrounds, and has many more episodes expected. 209.102.241.25 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)— 209.102.241.25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Someguy1221 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Actually, I have an acount, but it's on Wookiepedia. 209.102.241.25 01:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, so how does this make it notable per Wikipedia standards? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to all persons voting Do Not Delete AFD is not a vote. This Flash animation is cruft, nonnotable, and has no verifiability outside Google, Newgrounds, and YouTube, which are not reliable sources. We do not judge a deletion based on popularity, but by its encyclopedic content.--WaltCip 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Walt, the template above covers this fine - and keep in mind that the admins will take the commentary into account when they close this. Just relax, it'll close in due time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment After browsing through 5 pages of searches in Yahoo, I found a french site that mentioned the series: [1]. I checked the site, it's not a forum, it's more like IGN, French style. The site might a secondary source, since it covers many different consoles and mp3 players. Cheers.--Kylohk 08:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, Kylohk, but if that's all we can dredge up, it's not going to survive. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, my delete opinion above still stands then. I was just trying to give them a chance, but looks like the activity of anons has decreased substantially today.--Kylohk 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Would these few sites be credited as notible?

http://gonintendo.com/?p=2333

http://poisonmushroom.megamanempire.net/?p=1189

http://divineomega.co.uk/mario/super-mario-bros-z/

http://www.nintendo-master.com/blog/darklinkgc:index

http://blogs.ign.com/knight801/2006/04/30/15257/

Jn314 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC) aka NessMasta

Those 5 links lead to either Blogs or Livejournals. According to the verifiability guideline, those are considered to be self-published sources, and are not accepted as reliable sources in Wikipedia.--Kylohk 21:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

comment: Actually the first two arent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.26.125 (talk)

  • No, they're all blogs. Not really that reliable, and certainly not notable. WP:N and WP:RS, as several people on this page alone have pointed out, will point you in the right direction. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

comment Wikipedia please give us more time and we will get refrences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.26.125 (talk)

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.