Talk:Diddy Kong Racing Adventure

Wiki Coverage

Why does this demo have its own wiki page if it was rejected by Nintendo? Is there any evidence that this demo isn't 100% unofficial, as in Nintendo authorized its creation? Should any pitched demo that gets rejected by Nintendo be covered on the wiki? Kong (talk) 20:56, March 13, 2026 (UTC)

Super Mario (comic) is an example of an article in the same boat, so this isn't a random exception to our usual rules. I think many readers are interested in "what could have been", so we want to have this kind of thing on the wiki. (Why else do we have a page for List of proposed media, almost entirely dedicated to things Nintendo turns down.) While we default to using List of unreleased media and List of proposed media for this, allowing full articles when we know too much about a given work for it to nicely fit on the list makes sense. (This article has four sections + an intro, it's not fitting nicely in the list.) Salmancer (talk) 21:23, March 13, 2026 (UTC)

In addition to that, the article itself seems to suggest that the game wasn't "rejected" so much as it was "canceled due to Microsoft purchasing Rareware, which caused development to cease."

As for its authenticity, if you mean to suggest that the game itself may be a fabricated hoax, you'd need to provide some verifiable evidence for that. (I do find it somewhat curious that the article largely pulls all its info from one source...)

Hope that helps. Wandering Poplin (talk) 21:30, March 13, 2026 (UTC)

The pitch was made in 2004 and the Rare buyout was in 2002, so the development happened after the buyout. The demo itself does exist, I'm just saying that there's seemingly no evidence that Nintendo authorized the demo to be created, meaning Diidy Kong Racing Adventure could be 100% unofficial, like a fan game. As Salmancer pointed out, I now see that the wiki does cover rejected game/comic pitches, even if unofficial. I just disagree with that rule. Kong (talk) 21:44, March 13, 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with the article existing. I don't agree that we should be removing valid content based mostly on a technicality. As for the parallels to fangames, I also think it's a fair guess to assume the game was likely intended to be eventually pitched to Nintendo, unlike fangames, but never made it to that stage, even if that's also technically speculation, so I don't think it's unreasonable to cover it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:41, March 14, 2026 (UTC)

The game was pitched to Nintendo, at least that's what the video about it says (which is pretty much the only source of information about the game). But since Nintendo rejected the pitch, and the video doesn't seem to indicate that Nintendo authorized the demo/concept to be created, does that not make the game completely unofficial? If Nintendo specifically requested Climax to make a demo for the game, then I think we definitely should have a page about it and concept art etc. The video doesn't seem to indicate that that was the case though. I guess it still falls under the wiki's coverage even if it's unofficial, but I don't think it should be like that. Kong (talk) 03:07, March 14, 2026 (UTC)