Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Kart Source

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. Black Kite 11:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Mario Kart Source

Mario Kart Source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability in question - a brief Google search reveals the usual unreliable sources (i.e. blogs, forums and videos). I've got no doubt that it exists, I'm just doubting its notabilty. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This does exist and has every right to be up on here like Synergy, GoldenEye: Source etc. I'm sure if say you also helped to include more info and help develop it more then it can stay. --Victory93 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article's notability is called into question. No one is claiming it doesn't exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Synergy (video game) and GoldenEye: Source are widely released by a company rather than being a home-brew. This article also has a lot less sources than those two and I'm unable to find reliable sources. Please read WP:RS and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (there are plenty of articles that should themselves be deleted that don't have any bearing on the inclusion of other articles) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, Synergy and Goldeneye: Source weren't made and widely released by a company, they were made by mod teams, one widely distributed through Steam the other not-so-widely released by the mod team. That, of course, has no bearing on their or this article's notability, but I thought I'd clarify that. -- Sabre (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Source engine mods. (edit conflict) I cannot find any reliable secondary sources (No, MODDB doesn't count as that is self-published) that can establish any verifiability of this mod. Also per similarly unverifiable Source mods, most of which were redirected to that list. The arguments given at Talk:Mario Kart Source also do not convince me. MuZemike 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  So what all this needs is more sources and then this will stay? And you know rather than just me finding sources, you could help too. And if Moddb is isn't reliable source then GoldenEye: Source should be up for deletion as it has heaps of stuff coming from Moddb. --Victory93 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  GoldenEye: Source needs cleanup, not deletion. There are sufficient reliable sources that can establish notability here, here, and here. MuZemike 01:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Well then this article coming under the same category as GoldenEye: Source should be cleaned up and not deleted. --Victory93 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  If notability can be established for this article just as I just did with GoldenEye: Source, then I will be more than happy to change to keep. Otherwise, I, as well as a couple of others, could not find any reliable sources that do. You understand the difference between the two articles you're comparing, right? MuZemike 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, and next time, please thread your comments appropriately next time (as I have corrected). MuZemike 03:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  I can't seem to see any difference ebtween. Only that they're both major modifications based on a popular series. Plus I've added some more notability. Plus the mod hasn't been released yet for to get heaps of info. Though there are heaps of sites showing info and screenshots of the mod. Plus there are heaps of game articles on Wikipedia with even less info and sources than this. Why single this article out? So if this page is like those with same amount of info, then this article clearly meets Wikipedia guidlines. --Victory93 (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  No DeleteI apologise for Victory93. He's the Mario Kart: Source's forum idiot. I'm not even sure why he made this article in the first place. He's not even staff there, he's been making crap character suggestions on the forum repeatedly that even the staff have rejected for about a week. Lord knows what he's doing on here. Sorry for letting him escape. Anyway, here's some sources. Joystiq link: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/22/mario-kart-source-pc-mod-uses-the-best-parts-of-each-mk-game/ Gonintendo link: http://gonintendo.com/?p=69974 . There's a few more but they all say basically the same thing. If this isn't sufficient, you'll just have to wait for the beta release.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.95.250 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  OK, OK, let's assume good faith here and launch personal attacks first off; we're not in that business of putting down other users here. Perhaps we can merge the article into List of Source engine mods as opposed to a straight redirect. Once the article can stand on its own, then it can be spun back out. MuZemike 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability established, and even if there was I can't see a non-stub article being written once you cut out all the game guide and fan cruft. As I said time and time again on the take page other source mod articles have nothing to do with this article. Rehevkor ✉ 14:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and oppose any merge or redirect. There's a dearth of reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• No Delete well of course we can keep this article up and when beta version is released, more info and sources can eb added. Plus we have sufficent sources up. There's are heaps of game articles up here which have less info than what's on this article yet they cleary meet Wikipedia guidlines so than this means that this article meets Wikipedia guidlines. --Victory93 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The mod being released does not automatically make it notable. So far we have one borderline source, not enough in my eyes to justify an article. We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," (emphasis mine) which has not been provided. Rehevkor ✉ 00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• No Delete NOT ENOUGH! From what I've seen this page meets wikipedia guidelines. There's heaps of other game articles that has less suficiant information than this and clearly they meet Wikipedia guidelines. DEleting this article would be the same as deleting any page on this site. I find this whole subject about deleting this pointless. Also what the person there above says about me, I don't even know what he's on about. I don't even know him. --Victory93 (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please, only one !vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stay this one more time, other articles have no bearing on this one. Other articles not following policy/guidelines having nothing to do with this article not following policy/guidelines, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Rehevkor ✉ 02:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Okay now there's sufficiant notabillity and now this article meets Wikipedia guidelines. And I was comparing those other articles to this by saying that they have the same number of information as this and they meet Wikipedia guidelines meaning that this page does. Not that they have the same exact information. --Victory93 (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Let me repeat what Rehevkor already stated. The existence of other articles have no bearing on the discussion for this article. That they are on wikipedia may mean that nodoby has gotten around to nominating them for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to List of Source engine mods and list there. There's the Jostiq article referenced in the page. Kotaku mention it also (disparagingly). These press-release regurgitations aren't significant enough to warrant a page of its own, although I can see the gaming press covering it a bit better once a public beta is released. Marasmusine (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Well then I guess we can keep this article up and when more information has come then it can be decided whether to delete this or not. As many game artcles are kept on here whether the game is unreleased and has less sufficiant information. --Victory93 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - We don't have articles hanging around with speculation about future notability. If it isn't established now, then it gets deleted. If it becomes notable in the future, then it would be appropriate to recreate the article then. -- Whpq (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment No Delete - Actually yeah we do and this already has notablility. --Victory93 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reply - If it already has notability, then why did you say in your previous comment ...we can keep this article up and when more information has come then it can be decided whether to delete this or not"? And as for the assertion that it already has notability, that is what is at issue in the AFD, so that question only can get answered at the close of the AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I vote for Marasmusine's idea. It'd be a shame for MKS' article to be deleted, but so be it. I think I'd rather see a honorable mention on the Source games list then no article at all.. Besides, when it's released it will have more attention and thus I assume the article can THEN be reinstated. Until now, the option for merging it into the Source games list seems to be the best one.. SpeedyDVV (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed insulting comments from SpeedyDVV's comments. Please keep the discussion on topic and without resorting to inlsuting other editors. -- Whpq (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ironically, the earlier post was actually truly insulting, whereas I only called his intelligence into question, based on the fact that he DOES keep repeating things. Would you look around the MKS forum in one of his topics, you'll see that he is unable to stop repeating things, and he will not stop bringing in invalid comments and suggestions, which is, in fact, very clear in the above posts. Either way... the MKS article had best be merged with the Source game list. To furthur try to discuss this is futile. There does not seem to be reason enough to actually keep the article intact, so a honorable mention seems fair enough to me. SpeedyDVV (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I did look at the forum and came to the conclusion that a two-way conversation with Victory93 is not on the menu. That isn't a green-light to insult him, and his actions on the mod's forums are not Wikipedia's problem. The admin who closes this discussion will weigh Victory93' comments on their merits. Someoneanother 20:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Lacks the multiple in-depth secondary sources required to establish notability, or in English: you can't build an article from secondary sources which do little except parrot what little information is available from the primary source. If it gets released without Ninty going ape on the project and showering it with lawyers, then it may receive that coverage. Or may not. In the meantime we don't need a placeholder and redirecting one or a million currently non-notable mods to another page or list seems fruitless (you could do the same with flash games, but if it's not here the reader isn't getting what they wanted either way). Someoneanother 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Synergy also lacks the in-depth sources yet it clearly meets wikipedia guidelines meaning this does. --Victory93 (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synergy (video game). Anything else? MuZemike 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources are provided, or available on searching, so the subject fails to establish how the notability requirements are met. Nuttah (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2009 (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.