Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kracko
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Merging is an editorial decision that anyone can do if they feel like it. - Bobet 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:N. No coverage in sources independent of the subject. ShadowUltra 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable. Could be treated as a section of a parent article per WP:FICT. Also, Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia. I added some references to the article. Tim Q. Wells 07:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge merge merge with Dyna Blade, Meta Knight, Whispy Woods, Waddle Dee, etc. into Kirby enemies, or possibly into Kirby enemies and Kirby bosses, as appropriate. It is arguably appropriate to have a bit of information on protagonists in such a prolific game series, but the level of detail in these articles is over the top, and, even if there are references per se, it pushes the bounds of OR. See, for example, the WP:BUFFY work on Sunnydale High School students. (Note of shamelss plug, since I originally wrote that article.) - Che Nuevara 13:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Kracko may be somewhat well-known within the Kirby universe, but he's not particularly important. And I disagree with the above merge proposer - Meta Knight most definitely doesn't warrant merging. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do not see any entry on the article discussion page or attempt to improve the article by placing the needs improvement sign before starting this AfD. 84.187.149.155 19:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very important boss to the series. One of the few characters besides kirby to be in 99% of the games, and makes an appearence in every non spin-off adventure in some form. Balladofwindfishes 19:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You say he's very important "to the series". And that's exactly the point. He has no notability outside it. Also, seeing as there are 19 Kirby games, he's probably not in 99% of them, as that would be mathematically impossible. - Che Nuevara 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't make comments like that. You know he means "almost all" and not literally 99%. Tim Q. Wells 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize. I didn't mean to be uncivil, just to discourage hyperbole (which frequently complicates AfD matters). I should have chosen words more carefully. - Che Nuevara 11:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. I don't really like the hyperbole either. Tim Q. Wells 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize. I didn't mean to be uncivil, just to discourage hyperbole (which frequently complicates AfD matters). I should have chosen words more carefully. - Che Nuevara 11:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't make comments like that. You know he means "almost all" and not literally 99%. Tim Q. Wells 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You say he's very important "to the series". And that's exactly the point. He has no notability outside it. Also, seeing as there are 19 Kirby games, he's probably not in 99% of them, as that would be mathematically impossible. - Che Nuevara 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Kirby (series) Will (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reminder to all voters: WP:N does not care how notable a subject is to its series, it cares how notable it is outside it. ShadowUltra 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you say "per nom?" The nominator's rationale no longer applies since I cited other sources in the article. And there are even more sources. Tim Q. Wells 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Independent of the subject" is the key phrase in the nomination. All the sources are specifically tied to Nintendo video games or to anime ... there is no coverage in sources not specifically about this genre, which, the nom (and I assume Doctorfluffy) argues, are required to establish its notability. - Che Nuevara 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they aren't all tied to Nintendo or amine and there are websites that are not dedicated to just this genre. Tim Q. Wells 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show me these reliable sources? Note that blogs and other fansites are not considered reliable. ShadowUltra 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the article...and would you please not insult my intelligence. Tim Q. Wells 22:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the four sources I see three fansites and a walkthrough. I didn't mean to insult you, I was just pointing out a commonly-forgotten reminder. ShadowUltra 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the article...and would you please not insult my intelligence. Tim Q. Wells 22:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show me these reliable sources? Note that blogs and other fansites are not considered reliable. ShadowUltra 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they aren't all tied to Nintendo or amine and there are websites that are not dedicated to just this genre. Tim Q. Wells 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Independent of the subject" is the key phrase in the nomination. All the sources are specifically tied to Nintendo video games or to anime ... there is no coverage in sources not specifically about this genre, which, the nom (and I assume Doctorfluffy) argues, are required to establish its notability. - Che Nuevara 16:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you say "per nom?" The nominator's rationale no longer applies since I cited other sources in the article. And there are even more sources. Tim Q. Wells 01:34, 29 October 2007 (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.
