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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M.U.G.E.N[edit]

M.U.G.E.N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find video game sources: "M.U.G.E.N" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Only reliable third party source is a singular review from Games Radar. The rest is entirely primary sources. The article is spammy and how-to-ish, and does not assert any kind of notability for the game. Google News turns up only false positives. Last AFD was kept due to coverage in Wired and the Washington Post, but inspection of this so-called coverage shows it to be trivial "top 10 list of ____ games" coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Andrevan@ 21:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The site says that the CD was included in some game magazines as a free insert, which would indicate that they, at least, thought it was notable. It may be difficult or impossible to track these down since they were from the early 2000's, however. —Soap— 23:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giving away something free doesn't mean that you are focusing or covering that thing. AA meetings give away donuts and coffee, but that isn't the point of the meeting. Those CDs get expensive to produce, so it makes sense that they take any decent free thing they can find and shove it on there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Which still isn't a valid assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that it's been around since 1999 and still has tons of videos being added to YouTube, etc., suggests that it is indeed notable to someone. However, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability and reliable sourcing, and I can't find any such references for MUGEN. Maybe in the future if sources arise we can recreate but until then, we should delete. Andrevan@ 06:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Another Type of Zombie ^talk 08:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or Redirect - The Gaming Blend and Washington Post pieces (judging from the abstract) are not "top 10" trivial coverage. These are full articles about MUGEN. However, I the 1UP review is user-written and should be discarded. At the very least this is verifiable software and should be mentioned at Fighting game or List of fighting games. Hmm, it seems that's what I said last time! Marasmusine (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per last AfD there's also a significant article at Cinema Blend. Not sure how we can completely dismiss the Washington Post article. Yes, it has a top 10 list, but are we dismissing the coverage in the first two paragraphs entirely? --Teancum (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative keep but I could see this being grouped into larger articles about user-generated content, indie development, fighting games in general, or the like. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag for cleanup This article could use some cleaning, but the sources in it adequately prove it's noteability. Jtrainor (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jtrainor - it does need quite a bit of cleanup. I think, however, that the sourcing is there - thin, but there. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:38, 20 May 2011 (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.