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 no consensus. Wizardman 17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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) 00:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's been merged, then its reason to exist is as a redirect. It has, however, no reason to be at AFD. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has to remain a redirect either way to keep the history, but this is the only place available to get past a wikilawyering user. TTN (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I am the wikilawyering user, then by those standards you certainly are. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need third party sources that talk about something that isn't primary in order to have a valid argument. TTN (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"sources that talk about something that isn't primary". TTN (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand. Did you mean primary sources? I'm not sure whether Absoluteanime is primary or secondary, but I think it can be used as a reference. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of Kirby characters#Kracko, lacks multiple reliable and non-trivial sources needed to establish notability, but deletion isn't an option. Individual character articles need to be well sourced and show out-of-universe details such as how the character developed, what was the reaction to the character etc. Kracko's just a minor boss, until someone demonstrates that a separate article is justified because quality information exists it should be a component of the character list. Someoneanother 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Article seems reasonably sourced. A merge and redirect per someone another would not offend me. Hobit (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect, as its already been merged. Can't be kept as separate for the reasons outlined above. Lankiveil(complaints | disco) 12:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Merge/redirect my !vote from the first AFD stands Will(talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've added more sources the the article. Summing up my reasons for keeping: This article should be treated as a section of its parent article, as described in WP:FICT. The introduction and the Anime section of the article could be merged into Characters in the Kirby video game series without making the list quite big, but the "Appearances in Kirby Games" section would be too much to merge. The "Appearances in Kirby Games" section is also quite easy to find sources for, as it's easy to find sources that describe the games, and mention Kracko's role. Whether or not this article is kept, it is not going to solve the problem of sources (though I believe there is no problem). Whatever has been merged into Characters in the Kirby video game series (which does not include the games with Kracko, and which is harder to source) won't be different in sources. Wikipedia absolutely cannot fail to mention Kracko's role in different Kirby games, which is what many readers want, and is easy to source. It makes complete sense to treat Kracko as a section of Characters in the Kirby video game series. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The information in the list is meant to describe the character, so that it can be referenced from game articles. We do not describe every minor aspect of every single minor character. And again, the summary style articles are lists and only lists. They will never be single characters. TTN (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When the minor information can easily be sourced, it makes sense to create a separate sub-article. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, sufficient information on this character to warrant an independent article. Everyking (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep outcome of previous discussion is clear. There has been little discussion on the article's talk page with regards to a merge. Catchpole (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and Judgesurreal. Sources are not sufficient to establish notability and do not appear to provide a basis for out-of-universe, real-world analysis or commentary. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I am satisfied by the previous discussion that this subject is notable enough for our project and has significance for people in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. No real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect for the reasons explained by someoneanother. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment All the article actually says is that Kracko is a one-eyed cloud with spikes, who first appeared in Kirby's Dreamland and has appeared in several games since, as well as a single anime episode. That's the article, more or less, with an oversized list of games he appeared in which can be summarized or cut away completely. He's a minor character, listing every single game he pops up in is overkill. The Ebay article cited is a copy of the wikipedia article, the anime listing used to cite him first appearing in KDL doesn't even mention a single videogame, let alone the character's origins within them. The sixth cite is a forum post in German, the others refer to him in passing as being a character. There's nothing there to justify a seperate article in the first place and no reason that the character can't snugly reside in the list. Someoneanother 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.