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 it doesn't matter what i close it, TTN will just redirect it anyway. So redirect to Characters in the Kirby video game series. Wizardman 17:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dyna Blade (Kirby)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dyna Blade (Kirby) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a non-notable article that has already been merged as the result of a discussion. It has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How does that apply to a single minor character of a series? You may be able to pull it off with some major character, but nowhere would you be able to find an argument capable of keeping every minor character of a series without following policies or guidelines. TTN (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it applies. It is unsourced at the moment, but if it is merged, the article it will be merged into will also be unsourced, so, merging will not solve that problem. And when the guideline WP:FICT states that articles can be treated as a section of a parent article, I think it should be a separate article, as it is quite long. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The target list is accordingly tagged, and it actually has potential to become something. It is possible to type one thousand KB worth of information for even the most minor character if one were to try hard enough. The actual length has nothing to do with it unless the article has real world information from reliable sources. And again, that splitting only applies to lists. TTN (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, then I'll tag the Dyna Blade article. It also has that potential. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it does not at this point in time. You're free to try to prove me wrong, but unlike a general list of characters that encompasses the characters of close to twenty games and five other pieces of media, it does not come close to even looking like it has potential. TTN (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general list certainly may have more potential than this article, but I still disagree that this article doesn't have potential. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you show how this one minor character has more potential than tens of thousands of other characters that are just as unlikely to receive coverage, the claim is absolutely baseless and has no merit at all. TTN (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it has as much potential as any other recurring characters. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't just randomly talk about potential without a base. The base would be a character with real world information. Just blindly claiming that it has some sort of undefined potential does not help you. TTN (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was simply saying that I did not have to show that this character had more potential than others. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want the article kept you do have to show that reliable sources providing real world context exist, which is true for all articles about fictional characters. "No sources but keep it for this reason" is an unacceptable argument. Jay32183 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sources out there, I'm quite sure (which is what I mean by "potential"). Yes, I do know about reliable sources, etc. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not potential. Potential is "here are the sources, I just need time to add them to the article." You're guessing that there are sources. You need to provide sources or your argument is meaningless. "Sources are out there, somewhere" is not an acceptable reason to keep an article. It is the responsibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to provide sources. Jay32183 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enough of this. I'm sick of these tiresome pointless arguments. Yes, I think the article has potential for good sources, and I think it's just bizarre that you are telling me that I am misusing the word "potential." I'm sure at any major library there are many books on Nintendo and video games. I hate the immediatist attitude that so many Wikipedians have. It's incredibly harmful. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced information is more harmful than not including something. Read and understand WP:V and WP:OR before claiming an article should be kept based on its sources. Sources are required immediately. If you don't have a source for your information, then you don't add it. Jay32183 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unsourced information is more harmful than not including something." Fine, we disagree. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't disagree, that implies this is a matter of opinion. You are factually incorrect to claim that "sources are out there, but I'm not actually going to look for any" is a meaningful argument in an AFD. You actually need to never present the argument again. No sources means no adding, no restoring, and no retaining. Until you find sources there won't be a meaningful argument to keep this article. Jay32183 (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a matter of opinion. At any major library there will almost certainly be books that describe it. Enough of your little lectures. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only books on video games that you'll currently find analyze the video games of the 80s and their current impact today. To claim that a very minor character will be covered is simply ridiculous. Feel free to actually prove us wrong, though. TTN (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (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.
More