Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario 3 Special

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 3 Special

[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)

Procedural nomination after closing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 17 § Super Mario 3 Special as "restore and send to AfD". Some ancient history:

Prodded 31 August 2006 (3 minutes after creation) by RobJ1981
BLAR'd to Super Mario Bros. § Super Mario Bros. Special by Abryn in 2009) by SNS
25 minutes later

After the creator and one other opposed on talk, 216.43.51.147 removed the merge proposal on 3 September 2006. (N.B. That was the only edit ever made by the user concurring on talk.)
BLAR'd to Super Mario Bros. 3 by A Man In Black on 15 October 2006 with rationale One of countless HK specials, no real notability, redirecting
After 8 months of edit-warring, things settled on maintaining that redirect

The RfD close should be read as consensus against redirecting to Super Mario Bros. 3. I bring to AfD the question of whether this article should be kept, deleted, or redirected/merged to some other target. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and isn’t and will never be covered in the Super Mario Bros. 3 article. This is also not a commonly used alternate name for Mario 3 so a redirect is unnecessary.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure if this is a vanity article, but it definitely does not meet
WP:GNG. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not independently notable, not likely to be mentioned at the redirect target any time soon considering the lack of reliable sourcing. Not particularly likely to change any time soon, considering its unofficial, obscure, and old. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and im not sure if writing about piracy materials is allowed on wp. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See: Somari. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh.... I"d say that's more of a bootleg version of Sonic than an actual pirated version. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure of the distinction you're trying to make here, but regardless, yes, it's fine write about illegal things, just as long isn't linking to illegal things through sourcing, external links, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No
notability. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, no sources at all in the article, non-notable since it seems to just be a bootleg version of the game for Gameboy that basically no one knows about. Had a template saying it exists on Wikiquote which I deleted since it does not exist on Wikiquote (it wouldn't have any reason to anyways, it's a video game, there are no quotes really). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Contains no sources and isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2022 (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.