Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario 128 (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. - hahnch e n 00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 128

Don't know how this got through again. Non-notable tech demo showed at a trade show; the rest of the information claiming this is somehow Super Mario Galaxy is purely original research via synthesis. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:SYN. Chardish 02:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mario Galaxy: Per the previous consensus, as there are very little actual contextual changes since the last AfD. - Rjd0060 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not redirect. The connection between this and SMG is far too small to warrant such a confusing redirect. However, I do not agree with the claim that this is not notable. The tech demo itself (or whatever it was) received quite a lot of press, far more than even most games receive. It definitely appears to meet our notability requirements. --- RockMFR 05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it's notable or not (and I believe that it's not) doesn't change the fact that the article is pure original research via synthesis. From the article: During the GDC 2007, Miyamoto mentioned that Super Mario 128 was merely a demonstration to illustrate the power of the GameCube. That's it. Not a game. Assembling bits of interviews that insinuate that this was a game and that it's somehow more important than other tech demos flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. - Chardish 05:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article doesn't refer to it as a videogame, merely mentions it's original as a possible sequel to Super Mario 64. The article goes on to include information about it's further development. Furthermore, footage of the demo itself is easily available on streaming websites. It's not more important than other tech demos, it's of equal importance. - Sheeeeeeep 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mario 128 is a very well known series of technological demos and experiments that eventually made it into the Metroid, Zelda, Mario, and Pikmin series and has been referred to on and off by several Nintendo developers, however there has been changing emphasis on it's importance and exact nature. In the end, this is as equally important an article as similar ones for id Tech 5 or the Quake Engine, on this ground it is notable and thus shouldn't be deleted. It is verifiable because it comes straight from the source, Shigeru Miyamoto and Nintendo. It is not WP:SYN because it is not a comparison of different data or citations. It could use some cleaning up though. - Sheeeeeeep 07:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure where the original research in question is; it appears that the project is mentioned by name in each instance given. I would wager that this is the most discussed tech demo of all time; proving so, it seems to me, would indeed involve "assembling bits of interviews," but isn't that how we're supposed to write articles? If the nomination boils down to the assumption that a tech demo must evolve into a game to be notable, I strongly disagree. Maxamegalon2000 07:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Assembling bits of interviews" is absoutely not how we are supposed to write articles: please read what "no original research" means and why Wikipedia prohibits original research - Chardish 07:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not original research. It is information taken from interviews from the creator of the project (and thus can be deemed unbiased fact) published in appropriate credible online websites and news sources such as IGN, Wired, GameSpy and CNN. - Sheeeeeeep 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, and I just read it again, and I'm not sure how "assembling bits of interviews" is different from "research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources," which "is 'source-based research'" "fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Maybe we're not talking about the same concept? --Maxa megalon 2000 07:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How interesting. WP:V and WP:N seem well satisfied by the references in the article; in particular, it certainly is discussed in multiple reliable, independent sources. Whether it's a game or just a tech demo doesn't matter for Wikipedia:Notability. WP:OR and WP:SYN seem to be claimed in a completely mistaken interpretation of that policy; as has been pointed out above, quoting interviews falls under "collecting and organizing material from existing sources". Perhaps the article could use some cleanup, but I see nothing (besides a poorly-advertised previous AfD) that gives reason for removal of the article. Anomie 12:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Galaxy per Rjd - the target is because this an early speculation for the Mario Wii name . Appears to just be a series of snippets from interviews and not an article. The article doesn't even appear to claim notability - just stating that this was a demo of things that eventually turned up in games doesn't make the demo itself in any way notable. MLA 13:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Super Mario Galaxy is NOT Super Mario 128. Miyamoto has said so in interveiws. It's vaporware if anything. Doc Strange 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirecting to SMG would be a mistake (and an original research statement if you cannot provide a source that states that SM128 became only SMG.) This tech demo stayed around for almost a decade, and it apparently became the core of multiple games. Each of these game articles would logically link to SM128 as part of their development. This article, under proper guidance, could become an interesting source of information concerning the development of multiple games, as well as multiple consoles. The references are there, the article just needs some work.Youkai no unmei 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-known and distinct enough to warrant an article. — brighterorange (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nom. Do not redirect, as it is not the same thing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this a bad faith nom? - Chardish 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere - The information about Mario 128 should go somewhere, do we have an article on the history/development of Mario games? That would be ideal, make one stronger article and get ride of this weaker one. Judgesurreal777 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I recall a lot of press on this at the time it came out. The very definition of notable (it seems). Also its in no way OR, in any definition of the term. The nom needs to re-read OR in its entirety. The article does not claim that this is somehow SMG like the nom states either. Viperix 09:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Mario 128 has received more press than many games that have actually been published. A "merge" would dilute the material. Ichormosquito (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2007 (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.