Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushroom (Mario)
- 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 without consensus. Another Afd nom might be fair if done after three more months, if no further sources of any kind are found. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushroom (Mario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Perhaps the mushroom is iconic enough to be culturally notable; if so, that can be included in Mario (series). However, we do not need and should not have an article describing the gameplay effects of absolutely every incarnation of the Mario mushroom. Chardish (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge relevant information to Mario (series). I agree that the Mushroom is iconic of the Mario series (nearly every Mario game has a mushroom in it), but this is indiscriminate information that could easily be hacked down to a few sentences in the main Mario article. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually like this article. I found it entertaining and well written. Unfortunately, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Delete per guidelines cited above. Keeper | 76 20:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is notable enough to warrant its own article. Just like characters of the series. Actually the mushroom appears also outside of the Mario (series), so I don't think a merge would be good. And just like the nominator says, it's iconic. There's plenty of non-videogame info. that can be said. The article does need some work to make it less guide-like, though. Rocket000 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the problems I see, and perhaps you agree, is that while the Mushroom is "iconic" (to use others' words), I don't see how it could become a verifiable article. How would you source this article with independent sources (as opposed to in-universe)? That isn't meant as a challenge, per say, to you Rocket000, specifically, more of a general question. I've tried to find articles/Ghits,/whatever in regards to (specifically) the notability of the mushroom in Marioworld and have come up empty. I don't see how this would ever reach the appropriate level of sourcing per WP:V, WP:RS, and What Wikipedia isn't. Keeper | 76 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy, else merge - to the article's creator's userpage or to whomever is currently maintaining the article. This has the potential to become notable and well-sourced, and can probably be modified to be less discriminate.--WaltCip (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A major element of a huge number of clearly notable games. Keeper76, it can certainly become a verifiable article -- primary sources (the games themselves and their instructions) are perfectly valid for verifying the content. What you're concerned about appears to be notability -- independent sources are required for that part. Given the long history of the Mushroom Kingdom, I'm pretty sure such sources can be found, though it may take some searching. Pinball22 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and no, Pinball22. I have played many versions of Mario (as I suspect most Wikipedians have also) and I know what the mushrooms are and that they are a notable, iconic part of Marioworld.. I will say though, I've never heard reference to Mushroom Kingdom, that's a new term to me. The games themselves and their instructions are not necessarily valid for verifying the content, as in they are in-universe and therefore not independent of the subject. What I mean by verifiable is exactly that. Do you know of any sources that speak specifically about the mushrooms and their impact? (and not just about Marioworld?). Keeper | 76 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Verifiable", how it's normally used (see WP:V), simply means the information is published by a reliable source and others can check (references) to make sure it's accurate. I'm pretty sure Nintendo is a credible source. Rocket000 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's the problem. Nintendo isn't sourced here, and unless "Nintendo" (and I assume you mean gaming magazines in general--correct me if I'm wrong) wrote an article devoted to the cultural/gaming significance of the Mushroom from Mario Brothers, then I don't see how this article will ever meet verifiability guidelines. This article is a guide to what different mushrooms do in different versions of Mario. How can that be notable/verifiable outside of MarioWorld? I'm not disputing the importance of the mushroom in Marioworld. I'm saying it (the mushroom) isn't verifiable/iconic/written about in independent sources. (Mario is, MarioBros is, Mario (series) is. But the mushroom isn't. That's what I'm trying to get at. Keeper | 76 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I think we're just arguing semantics here. For example:
- And that's the problem. Nintendo isn't sourced here, and unless "Nintendo" (and I assume you mean gaming magazines in general--correct me if I'm wrong) wrote an article devoted to the cultural/gaming significance of the Mushroom from Mario Brothers, then I don't see how this article will ever meet verifiability guidelines. This article is a guide to what different mushrooms do in different versions of Mario. How can that be notable/verifiable outside of MarioWorld? I'm not disputing the importance of the mushroom in Marioworld. I'm saying it (the mushroom) isn't verifiable/iconic/written about in independent sources. (Mario is, MarioBros is, Mario (series) is. But the mushroom isn't. That's what I'm trying to get at. Keeper | 76 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Verifiable", how it's normally used (see WP:V), simply means the information is published by a reliable source and others can check (references) to make sure it's accurate. I'm pretty sure Nintendo is a credible source. Rocket000 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and no, Pinball22. I have played many versions of Mario (as I suspect most Wikipedians have also) and I know what the mushrooms are and that they are a notable, iconic part of Marioworld.. I will say though, I've never heard reference to Mushroom Kingdom, that's a new term to me. The games themselves and their instructions are not necessarily valid for verifying the content, as in they are in-universe and therefore not independent of the subject. What I mean by verifiable is exactly that. Do you know of any sources that speak specifically about the mushrooms and their impact? (and not just about Marioworld?). Keeper | 76 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I write "mushrooms make Mario big." I reference a Super Mario game. You can check the game to see if what I said is true. That's verifiability. (Though I wouldn't necessarily cite this fact because it's common knowledge. According to WP:V, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.")
- I write "the mushroom from the Mario series has greatly impacted the world." I cite The New York Times. That's notability. -Rocket000 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and I didn't mean "gaming magazines in general", I meant Nintendo itself (the games, the guides that come with them, Nintendo Power magazine, ect.). Nintendo establishes verifiability. Other (third-party) gaming magazines would establish notability. Rocket000 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we are trying to say the same thing (semantics). I completely understand what you mean by verifiability now (and yes, I can play the game to see that Mario gets bigger when he "eats" a mushroom). What's interesting to me is your pseudo-quote: "the mushroom from the Mario series has greatly impacted the world" and then say "New York Times". That's exactly my point. In my opinion (which is what AfD's are all about, really), is that because the New York Times, the LA times, the Daily News, or USA today, or anybody outside Nintendo, have never specifically written about the mushrooms in Marioworld It proves that they, in and of themselves, are not notable outside the in-universe notability. Hence, they don't need there own article, but merely a sidenote in the article about the Mario brothers and Marioworld. Also, thank you for your clarificatin of my assumption about what you meant in regards to "nintendo." "nintendo, meaning the game, the magazine, the user guides (what you cite) do not, IMO, "establish verifiability" because they are "in-universive". Again, Mario is notable. The Mario empire is notable. The mushrooms are part of that universe and should be stated as such, but not as their own independent article. Sidenote, thank you for your civility in this discussion. It is much appreciated! Keeper | 76 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think part of the problem in this conversation is that you're confusing the Wikipedia definitions of verifiability and notability. Independent sources are needed for the latter, but not for the former. Yes, an article has to be both, and so independent sources are needed, but the facts of the article can be verified by non-independent reliable sources. Pinball22 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent sources establish the notability of the topic. Once a topic's notability is established, primary sources can be used to support the article and are considered verifiable, but independent sources should be used whenever possible to maintain neutrality and to avoid original research. - Chardish (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think part of the problem in this conversation is that you're confusing the Wikipedia definitions of verifiability and notability. Independent sources are needed for the latter, but not for the former. Yes, an article has to be both, and so independent sources are needed, but the facts of the article can be verified by non-independent reliable sources. Pinball22 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we are trying to say the same thing (semantics). I completely understand what you mean by verifiability now (and yes, I can play the game to see that Mario gets bigger when he "eats" a mushroom). What's interesting to me is your pseudo-quote: "the mushroom from the Mario series has greatly impacted the world" and then say "New York Times". That's exactly my point. In my opinion (which is what AfD's are all about, really), is that because the New York Times, the LA times, the Daily News, or USA today, or anybody outside Nintendo, have never specifically written about the mushrooms in Marioworld It proves that they, in and of themselves, are not notable outside the in-universe notability. Hence, they don't need there own article, but merely a sidenote in the article about the Mario brothers and Marioworld. Also, thank you for your clarificatin of my assumption about what you meant in regards to "nintendo." "nintendo, meaning the game, the magazine, the user guides (what you cite) do not, IMO, "establish verifiability" because they are "in-universive". Again, Mario is notable. The Mario empire is notable. The mushrooms are part of that universe and should be stated as such, but not as their own independent article. Sidenote, thank you for your civility in this discussion. It is much appreciated! Keeper | 76 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and I didn't mean "gaming magazines in general", I meant Nintendo itself (the games, the guides that come with them, Nintendo Power magazine, ect.). Nintendo establishes verifiability. Other (third-party) gaming magazines would establish notability. Rocket000 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mario (series) article and merge relevant content to that article. A list of the mushrooms in Mario games and their uses is simply game guide content at best. Wikipedia isn't the place for game guide content. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- again, I don't know the game, but WP NOT does not say " Wikipedia isn't the place for game guide content." The actual statement in NOT is that " a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." There will obviously be a considerable overlap in content. Whether this article predominantly is in the manner of a game guide is the question, not whether some of the content would also be appropriate as part of the information in a game guide DGG (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should also look at the fact that Wikipedia is not a place for dumping in-universe information. Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should provide sourced information on the works' real-world context, such as development, production, distribution, and cultural reception and impact. I don't see how descriptions of gameplay effects of a powerup satisfy any of these. - Chardish (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- again, I don't know the game, but WP NOT does not say " Wikipedia isn't the place for game guide content." The actual statement in NOT is that " a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." There will obviously be a considerable overlap in content. Whether this article predominantly is in the manner of a game guide is the question, not whether some of the content would also be appropriate as part of the information in a game guide DGG (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per User:Rocket000. I agree. An important aspect of the Mario series, and known outside of it as well. IceflamePhoenix (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Known outside the series" - that is a claim that must be backed up by sources. - Chardish (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a notable aspect of arguably one of the two or three most notable game series in history. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, if you're going to claim that, you need sources. Declaring that something is notable is not good enough. - Chardish (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rocket000. Knowitall 06:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per someone who made a claim not verified by sources? - Chardish 07:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there must be dozens upon dozens of third party sources available on the subject, namely gaming magazines. RFerreira 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So find some. And remember, we're looking for sources that establish the cultural notability of this topic. - Chardish 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - We desperately need to create a "Universe of the Mario Brothers series" article to put this and Mushroom Kingdom into. Judgesurreal777 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The Mario mushroom has begotten more than an in game importance in pop culture symbolism. An article on its own is justified from that alone. Lord Metroid (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Lord Metroid.--CastAStone|(talk) 18:38, 6 December 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.