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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Kingdom Fusion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not released and unplayable, or at least I can't find any reliable third-party description of a release... developer's website is down. Coverage in blogs Kotaku, Joystiq and Destructoid appears to be based on a YouTube video called Super Mario Fusion, which could just as easily be a flash movie as a game. Andrevan@ 05:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku is often linked by Steam as a source, so that gives it a tint of reliability. The Steam pages (run by Valve and an official distributor for MANY games) frequently link to Kotaku as a primary source (they've done so for Mass Effect, Fallout:New Vegas and numerous other top-10-selling titles. I am not sure about the game itself, but Kotaku is a reliable source to me in wiki terms because it has been cited as a primary source by secondary sources like the Steam product pages. In other words, Kotaku is a Primary Source. If a product page published by Valve, a secondary source, cites Kotaku as relating to one of their products, then it is a tertiary reliable source for our purposes. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy Kotaku as borderline reliable (not primary, I don't think you quite understand what a primary source means) -- but take a look at the entry. This is just a repost of the YouTube video, the game is still impossible to obtain. Andrevan@ 08:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - All three sources are reliable, and do more then just show the video. They give some commentary, which I think is decent enough for "Significant coverage in third party reliable sources". The question is whether or not an article like this should really be made. I have just asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Fan remakes/hacks for them to better explain guildelines about fan games and hacks. I think this should be closed, and then a redirect/merge discussion be made afterwards. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three articles give medium-light commentary, two of which are listed as situational sources on Wikipedia's Reliable sources list. This does not strike me as an article that needs to exist at all. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, these web sites have been noted to be situational in the past (Kotaku was once situational as well) due to their coverage of trivial subjects (such as "you can get ocarinas in real life!" and "Final Fantasy VII hentai!". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the previous Afds, browsing through the history of the page, and looking for news articles, I am absolutely convinced there is not enough significant third-party coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough 3rd party coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 21 April 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.