Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1-up (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. One two three... 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1-up

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still an unsourced dicdef with loads of OR. Everything not related to Mario is unsourced, and I still don't see how it can be more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Health (gaming) as H3llkn0wz suggested in the last afd. Concept is notable, but finding sources is problematic, and leaving it as a red-link is in my mind an unpalatable option. Trimming it down and covering it elsewhere, leaving the option available for the article to be SPLIT back out at a later date is probably the best option. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep We just had a keep about a month ago. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - On 7 October the article survived AfD on the grounds it was poorly written but potentially notable. Since 7 October there have been no relevant changes to policy and the only changes to the article have been improvements. Were people to disagree with a procedural keep, I would nevertheless vote Keep as (a) even a cursory Google search provides overwhelming evidence of notability, (b) experience elsewhere has shown that where conventions of game design have become so ubiqitous as to enter pop culture they will almost certainly be able to support a well-referenced "History" section, if nothing else. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Health (gaming) per Umbralcorax. This concept is a subset of health which does not have enough material to support its own article. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is ridiculous! Once again, this editor didn't get his way in the first AFD, so renominates the same article again. It closed as keep on 7 October 2011. There really needs to be a rule against such nonsense. Dream Focus 18:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Dream Focus. Renominations for deletion of previously kept articles is unproductive. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above or transwiki to the dictionary. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear consensus to do anything but delete this notable term. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2011 (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.