Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Bros. II (2nd nomination)

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. czar 04:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Bros. II

[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)

This was previously AFD'd in a batch nomination in 2013 with several other unofficial Mario games with stronger sourcing (Kart Fighter & Super Mario War), and Mario Bros. II largely wasn't touched upon in the discussion. Currently the article relies entirely on video game database entries, which aren't reliable, and I was unable to find any sources, although the title of the game meant there was a lot of unrelated results that were difficult to dig through. The fact that it's a PD title as opposed to a commerical release may contribute to the lack of coverage. Waxworker (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for "'Mario Bros' Commodore" or "'Mario Bros' Thundersoft" filters out anything related to official Nintendo releases, but once they're all gone there just isn't much left. A few databases and some user-generated content, but nothing that's both reliable and substantial. I also tried a search of 1980s computer game magazines on archive.org and nothing came up there either. Lowercaserho (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find 3 more sources and added. I think this has got historical significance, so we must keep. There are enough supporting sources for it. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources you added, MobyGames and GameFAQs are both unreliable (as listed on WP:VG/RS) since they are user generated content. I'm don't know if AusGamers is reliable but even if we assume that it is then the article still only has a single paragraph about the game, which is not significant coverage. Lowercaserho (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - every source present, and what I've found, is either unreliable, not significant coverage, or both. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 26 May 2021 (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.