Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recurring Mario franchise enemies

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. Clear consensus that this list fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Mario franchise enemies

[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)

Nominated per the suggestion of participants in the Zelda enemies AfD. The list fails WP:LISTN since it has a distinct lack of secondary sources to establish notability. It is Wikia level material that does not fit Wikipedia's current standards. I would also suggest potential WP:SALT of only the most prominent redirects, such as Bob-omb and Piranha plant, to prevent recreation if the article is deleted. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but Merge relevant content to - most likely - Mushroom Kingdom. Referencing the Zelda enemy AFD, we had Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda#Creatures that would be an appropriate replacement for a list. I don't see a "Universe" article for Mario, but Mushroom Kingdom sufficiently covers it (and yes, I know there are some games that don't take place in it proper, but we're not Wikia, that's a trivial issue). That allows keeping brief one-two lines about various enemies, keep blue links to the notable ones, but cuts out the weight of in-universe descriptions. That type of list can then at least to be sourced to strategy guides or the like. --Masem (t) 17:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikia cruft, not independently notable. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge relevant content per Masem. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Sergecross73; notability independent of the subject is not established. Take what's relevant to other articles and conduct a deletion - not a plausible redirect nor is the history valuable if the subject will only ever be in-universe, so an alternative to deletion is not practical here. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Barca (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for edit history and links to items within the list. The list of recurring Zelda enemies was also redirected in the same vain. Utopes (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that somebody has undone the redirect at the Zelda article and the is being nominated for deletion. I couldn't care less there. But here, as somebody who had put in effort to clean up the article as best that I could, I can't support a full deletion of this article. I would rather redirect and protect it, as I do know that there are links to individual subheaders of the article. Merge at the least. Utopes (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But why? Not to be mean, but “I put a lot of work into it” isn’t a valid rationale for a merge/redirect, nor is anything else you said. Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can also continue said work at a fan Wiki if you so wish. That has no bearing on whether it should be here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Fails the WP:GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - bit last minute, but I'd like to put in a request to userfy this - I want to put in a more detailed search for sources and see if this article is salvageable when I have more time. Also, a friendly reminder to the closing admin that SALT should never be pre-emptive, and unless it has been repeatedly recreated in the part (which the nominator did not prove or mention) this page is not eligible for SALT. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 22:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can do all of that without user userfying though. Very little here is usable. If by some miracle you found appropriate sourcing, you’d pretty much have to start from scratch anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 22 July 2019 (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.