Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperMarioLogan

Add links
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. czar 16:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SuperMarioLogan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

SuperMarioLogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deleted four times between 2014 and 2017. The small handful of 3rd party reliable sources don't have sufficient depth of coverage to qualify for general notability; nearly all are simply mentions a character from the series as an example of content parents shouldn't be allowing their children to see. The only reference with any kind of depth is from deadlinenews.co.uk, which rather than being to credited to one of their reporters is credited to "guest," thus failing under news org reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral: I had initially declined the article as I too was dubious of the notability, but Sdkb (pinging for input) convinced me it was worthy, hence the AfC publish. Also relevant; Logan Thirtyacre has been created and deleted 5 times since this title's salting in 2017 — IVORK Talk 03:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IVORK: ALso Draft:Logan Thirtyacre was recreated to the point of saiting. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Early life content (medical conditions) does not contribute to notability, nor does paying for a dinner with Brady. This leaves little in the article. David notMD (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT, several reliable resources in citation box. Trevortnidesserped (talk) 1:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Abstain Good citations, notable personality, and is controversial enough to stand out with other youtubers. a gd fan (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC) See my comment below Praxidicae's --a gd fan (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the notion that there are "good citations" here is silly and also the idea that controversy automatically = notability is equally ridiculous. This is a puffy feel good piece and akin to gossip, it has no depth. this is not Deadline, it's a guest post to a blog that isn't reliable (and even if it were, it's a passing mention), this isn't coverage, this is a perspective piece which is admittedly okay but hardly in depth coverage of the subject, a three paragraph warning in a local paper isn't exactly the type of in depth journalism we look for, and this is just blatantly unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now I never meant if it's controversial, than it's notable, but this guy is notable. His content made a kid put a noose around his neck because the kid mimicked it. Although I checked the references again, and I saw some unreliable ones, and your comment makes sense, so I change my vote to abstain. Hopefully someone can make a better bio of him --a gd fan (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment - Although it is true that someone imitated Jeffy's moves and passed away. --a gd fan (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:If it is deleted, then it will 100% need to be salted. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has been covered numerous times by well known websites, ENT and GNG state the subject "must have made innovative contributions in associated field of entertainment," "have a large fan base or significant 'cult' following," "must have been independently discussed" and "does not need a fixated quantity of reliable sources." Nearly every source puts primary focus on the subject. Whether the sources are to few people's fancy-dancy standards is irrelevant. I, Sdkb, Royal Autumn Crest, GDFan, among others, provide good enough points to support the need for an article on Logan, deletion is not necessary. Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trevortnidesserped You only get one !vote and you already gave it above. They aren't my standards, they are Wikipedias. Praxidicae (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I cant find three solid reliable sources that proves subject of our discussion merits a standalone at this point in time. So I totally support OhNoitsJamie’s stance. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 03:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and analysis by Praxidicae, fails WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:05, 10 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SuperMarioLogan&oldid=994209978"