Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nintendo Megaton

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. --- Deville (Talk) 03:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nintendo Megaton

Non notable internet meme, probably a neologism, which we should avoid. Article prodded three minutes after creation in May,[1] deprodded[2] by article creator with a comment in the talk page.[3] although I find some problems with the reasoning:

  1. A quick [google] reveals thousands of pages: the user does a search for Nintendo Megaton (90,900 hits), but a search for "Nintendo Megaton" returns 13,400, and a more cleaned "Nintendo Megaton" -forum -topic just 2,320.
  2. "Nintendo Megaton" has nearly 500 mentions: creator acknowledges a low amount of hits
  3. He gives six links as examples for importance. One is broken, three are forum posts, an article that uses Megaton in the title only, and one (apparently the only useful, found at http://www.n-sider.com/articleview.php?articleid=188) states that the meme ("Megaton") was first used in 2002.

Article has no references, quite a lot of speculation. Finally, note that it has recently been linked from Joystiq at http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/15/megaton-the-story-behind-the-meme/ which may bring some disruption. -- ReyBrujo 04:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable meme that fails the WP:NEO criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- XLO 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the reasoning above. One other thing that you have to look at when you google a topic like this is how many pages the results for this stop after 160 something hits... That means of 2.3k hits, there is a lot of multiple mentions on the same site. --Kunzite 19:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was a moderator on the IGN message boards at thhe time, and I remember this was a huge meme. I know numerous gaming outlets reported on it. Some references just need to be dug up. Ace of Sevens 05:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 05:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This may well have been a "huge meme" on the IGN message boards, but this site you are editing here is "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", not "Memepedia, the free archive of internet memes". — Haeleth Talk 21:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per my original PROD and nom. No reliable sources at all for this. Wickethewok 23:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with what Ace of Sevens said. This term was and still is heavily used in the gaming community. Darkchun 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment but it doesn't matter that it was heavily used in a gaming community. Wikipedia doesn't need articles of these tiny, unsourced, memes which are full of unsourced, primary (original) research as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Kunzite 00:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be verified that this was huige in the gaming world, its OR and fancruft. guitarhero777777 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep An AfD is not a way to clean up articles! If you want something moved to another Wiki, cleaned up or verified, please use the appropriate tags. You can use the {{Move to gaming wiki}}, {{cleanup}}, {{gameguide}} and/or {{fact}} tags to help the article, as an AfD is worthless in this case. Havok (T/C/c) 06:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep has been mentioned at gamesindustry.biz as well, also notability isn't an offical policy. Mitaphane talk 23:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No, but there are guidelines that are detailed interpretations of several official guidelines what content does not belong on wikipedia, what level of verifiability needs to be there for an article to exist, in order to ensure that no original research is entered into the wikipedia. --Kunzite 23:57, 21 September 2006 (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.