Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario Wiki

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. It's snowing. ❄️ ✗plicit 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Wiki[edit]

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

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

Repeated recreation of a non-notable topic, as proven from this Google search, this one, and this one (Further evidence of this at the article logs). Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No reliable secondary sources about the subject, yet has been recreated several times. Liu1126 (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT -- The subject is a non-notable fan website with no indication of notability, and it is highly doubtful it will become notable anytime soon. JTtheOG (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rip and read off the wiki's front page. Unless the creators can be bothered to actually write something else and source the wiki's notability, salt it. Nate • (chatter) 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and throw away the key Self referential page that hasn't made any effort to be a page of substance. Salt it as well. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Wiki within wiki? Isn't that why they have Fandoms? Highly inadequate. dxneo (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let it snow delete and salt. We have a wiki about the fandom wiki, but we do not talk about the wiki projects themselves. It goes against general guidelines. Besides, aren't any sources nor do I ever expect there to be. So yes, salt it. Conyo14 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt For completeness sake, checked Google Books, Google scholar, and TWL resources and found nothing covering this wiki. Jumpytoo Talk 04:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to be notable. Cannot find any significant third party coverage that isn't other wikis or forum/social media posts. No one is talking about this. Canterbury Tail talk 14:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The only sources the article cites are SPS. No other secondary sources can be found; therefore, this article is not (and possibly never will be) notable. And what's a "salt"? Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 15:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Salting it prevents it from being created again. Its akin to salting a field so nothing will grow there in the future. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are actually at least two secondary sources that contribute to notability and they're fine. I've added them to the article. The article is better now. But they don't contribute to notability to a sufficient degree.—Alalch E. 18:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT Of the 20 sources 9 of them are the wiki itself and 5 are other fan wikis.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:21, 25 November 2023 (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.