Talk:Blip

Delete
This article, along with Vic Video, should be deleted. According to Canonicity, ''Lastly, it should be noted that, canonical or not, the Super Mario Wiki only covers official content, as well as unofficial but notable mainstream cameo appearances and knockoffs that have been acknowledged by Nintendo itself. Fan creations, such as fan-fiction, fan-made video games, or fan-theories, are not to be referenced within our articles.'' Blip has nothing to do with Nintendo and is not notable at all. It only ran for seven issues in 1983. The contents of this article should be here instead: List of Mario references in publications.--Platform (talk) 00:55, June 29, 2021 (EDT)
 * Marvel Comics seems to have used Nintendo's property outright rather than simply reference it, which wouldn't be feasible without some licensing agreement occurring. My own doubts on this matter lead me to think there should be copyright information somewhere in this particular Blip issue to prove it. If so, then this page and Vic Video describe officially-endorsed subjects that are covered under Coverage and should stay; the publication's notability has no bearing on this. 04:19, June 29, 2021 (EDT)
 * There is no need for licensing since it is a fair use parody which is exempt from copyright. Nintendo isn't mentioned at all in that issue.--Platform (talk) 04:32, June 29, 2021 (EDT)
 * Except this isn’t a parody. Mario and Donkey Kong appear wholesale rather than being imitations of the original characters. EDIT: Checked the issue myself. Indeed, no mention of Nintendo is made. I’m not exactly sure how to proceed on this one. 05:49, June 29, 2021 (EDT)
 * The magazine itself probably isn't licensed, but the comic has to be. I looks like it to me. 00:59, July 6, 2021 (EDT)

Formal proposal to delete the Blip and Vic Video articles
The above discussion was never resolved after nearly two years, so this proposal should allow it to finally reach a conclusion.

The first issue of Blip makes no reference to Nintendo whatsoever, not even so much as fine print reading along the lines of "Donkey Kong © Nintendo" alongside the other copyright information on pages 1 and 2. Thus, all evidence points to the Donkey Kong comic in the issue being unlicensed, like the remainder of the magazine. Because of this, this article and the Vic Video article should be deleted, and any information about the comic should be moved to the List of references in publications, under the Magazine references section.

Proposer: Deadline: June 10, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Delete articles and move to List of references in publications

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per all, though since the whole comic is Mario-based I feel like we should probably keep the entire plot summary as-is on the list of references page without trimming, and these articles can be made redirects to that.
 * 4) Predictably, the opposition employs speculation and several fallacies at once to make their arguments. Per proposal.
 * 5) On the account that the comic is satire like Platform stated, and we have no official confirmation that the comic was officially endorsed by Nintendo, this sadly seems like the more logical option. I do agree with Hewer that the plot summary should be kept, though.
 * 6) Per Hewer, we don't necessarily have to do anything to the comic summary, just move it to the list of references and add redirects. As the comic isn't licensed or acknowledged by Nintendo, it shouldn't have its own article per wiki guidelines.

Keep articles

 * 1) - Considering they mention Mario and Donkey Kong by name and they appear as the characters themselves, we'd honestly be fine enough to deem this as a notable guest appearance, personally. It's not particularly hurting anyone to keep it here, as this was still early enough into the franchises' existence where stuff like this was still new. While it's ultimately not too big of a deal as long as the result of deletion is "merge it to List of references and we basically cover this like Wreck-it Ralph", if we're fine to give Captain N: The Game Master and Saturday Supercade their own articles, why not Blip, right?
 * : So, we can give Captain N and Saturday Supercade articles but this one doesn't deserve one because it's not officially licensed/endorsed Nintendo media?

Comments
@Camwoodstock, the question at hand isn't whether or not it deserves an article, but whether or not it is an officially licensed/endorsed by Nintendo media Spectrogram (talk) 14:46, May 27, 2023 (EDT)
 * Fair point; however, given Nintendo was very litigious about unauthorized appearances of their characters even back then (see Crazy Kong, a technically official re-issue of the original Donkey Kong that went sour fast after the company responsible for the re-issue started making decidedly unofficial re-issues of other Nintendo arcade games) and the lack of any Blip Lawsuits, we think it's safe to assume it's authorized. Admittedly, comic books are not our strong suit, but it seems Blip Magazine was a publication by Marvel; someone more familiar with them might be able to vouch something? 14:58, May 27, 2023 (EDT)
 * Blip didn't need permissions. This is a work of satire, which is protected free speech. It is satirizing the premise of the game, its strange title, its well worn tropes, and also jabbing at muckraking journalism.--Platform (talk) 00:59, May 28, 2023 (EDT)

@PrincessPeachFan they're both licensed by Nintendo. Spectrogram (talk) 08:51, May 28, 2023 (EDT)