Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta Knight

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. highly recommend to merge whatever useful info though, keep votes were mostly moot as content dispute Secret ^account 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This character does not establish notability through the inclusion of real world information from reliable sources. Most of the information is original research, unnecessary plot details, and some game guide information. There is no current assertion for improvement. The character is important to the series, so it has been given an adequate section over at List of Kirby characters#Meta Knight along with the other "main secondary character" King Dedede, while the main character, Kirby, is the only one with enough real world information to hold an article. TTN (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see what it's hurting. What is the point of throwing out information? It's not like this is a silly little vanity article. The notability guidelines are becoming too confining. I doubt this article will stand, but I'm casting my vote for it to stay. --BtVSFan (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, TNN has good points. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree per TTN. Showers (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TTNs record of predicting the existance of sources is so poor as to be irrelivant and since that is what his argument is ultimately based on his argument is unsupported.Geni 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can find some reliable sources and prove the article meets WP:N, I'll endorse a keep. Until then, I'm erring towards delete. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah no AFD process requires that TTN makes a reasonable effort to check that things like this aned this and this don't exist.Geni 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Those all just describe the character's role in a video game, which is already covered within the list entry. They do not add anything to this. TTN (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• so you conceed there are posible references. Good. Since it appears the character exists beyond the series it would appear that it gets it's own article.02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, I said that those do not do anything. As of yet, I do not believe any valid sources exist for any character of this series besides Kirby. TTN (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The fact that he got himself picked as a character in the new Super Smash Brothers makes me think he might be able to meet notability somewhere. Some more poking around might be in order. matt91486 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep Oh, yeah! I totally forgot he's been confirmed for Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which is a non-Kirby game. That's somewhat sufficient, but only enough for a weak keep vote from me right now until a bit more notability is brought up. Doc Strange (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright I haven't any other assertions of notability. So i'm changing my vote to Weak Delete Doc Strange (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability has nothing to do with being in multiple games. As the Smash Bros series does not bring sources to the table (a good chunk of the characters don't even have articles), it seems rather irrelevant. TTN (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Notability has nothing to do with being in multiple games" citation needed.Geni 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. Unless being in multiple games equals guaranteed sources, its irrelevant. TTN (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added in three references and there are definitely more references out there to back up the information in this article(yes they are real world things), also the article could be expanded with less in-game details such as when Masahiro Sakurai created the character. This isn't the best article around but it definitely isn't an article that needs to be improved. Just stub the thing it isn't like it is doing anyone harm and isn't some blatant advertisement or anything like that. --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage in secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources supplied to establish notability as yet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 09:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Already has a section over at the list of kirby characters. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - OK, I've searched for "Meta knight" in the Access World News database, which is a database of medium-to-large newspapers worldwide. (If you have access to university library login, you can duplicate the results. Otherwise, you won't be able to). So I'll be listing quotes outside of just linking:

"And there are some new characters. Meta Knight , Kirby's most popular rival, makes an appearance with his golden sword and handy invisibility trick. Pit from Kid Icarus pops up with a bow which fires blazing arrows and then splits into two curved blades. " - Lawson, Steve. "Wee E3 Kings Kings". Daily Record (Glasgow), May 19, 2006.

"In Amazing Mirror, Kirby is split into four versions of himself (hmm, much like Nintendo's recent take on the Legend of Zelda series) and must battle the forces of Meta Knight." - Campbell, Chris. "Gaming." The Stuart News (Florida), December 3, 2004.

"A creature called Dark Mind has invaded Mirror World and now mirrors eflect only a person's inner darkness. First to fall victim is Meta Knight , who is transformed into Dark Meta Knight He sets the game off by slicing our pink, bloblike hero Kirby into four different Kirbys. The quartet must investigate Mirror World and reverse the curse before it spreads home to Dream Land." - Davenport, Misha and Jae-Ha Kim. "Game Zone: Reviews, Tips, and Trends on Video Games." Chicago Sun-Times. November 12, 2004.

Just as a general note, my favorite part of this was to see that someone named one of their daughters Meta Knight, which showed up in an obituary! I don't know if these sources are enough to save the article or not, but I at least wanted to show that he got mentioned a few times in actual newspapers. matt91486 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These quote don't provide anything meaningful. We need reliable sources that establish notability and provide real world context. Although the newspapers may be reliable, their coverage is trivial. Jay32183 (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can accept that. I just thought I'd give it a go because I'd like to see the article stay. But I didn't feel confident enough to vote keep even though I personally wish it could. matt91486 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can request that the closing admin move the page to a subpage of your userspace while you try to hunt down sources. We're definitely certain that there are no easy to find sources, but if you're confident that you can come up with something it may be worth it. When your satisfied that there's nothing you can then request a speedy deletion, I believe it's U1. Jay32183 (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominator was displeased that his attempts to merge the lengthy, referenced article in December without any discussion was challenged, so now he wants it deleted. Please don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point or get back at others. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is a next possible step when discussion doesn't work. That's hardly pointy. TTN (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What does "There is no current assertion for improvement" mean? Do you just mean that there are no tags on it? Why is that addressed by deletion? — brighterorange (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That means that this isn't just a poorly written article that could easily be referenced if people just worked on it. TTN (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, why is this not a good option? Although be very harsh in deciding what to keep and what to cut. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a 15 year-old character that has appeared in 5 Kirby-video-games with a 6th game not tied to the Kirby series, to be released in weeks; not to mention the additional media of character that have appeared in. It is evident through the previous merge discussion and this current AfD that there are vested editors willing to contribute. Finally, there is an editorial precidence that the antagonists of the major Nintento series characters have their own pages (ex. Ganon and Bowser (Nintendo)). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MERGE, Seriously, what's the point in wiping an article out. While it probably isn't possible that this character doesn't establish notability, why delete him? What if someones does find real world info and notability in some shape or form. In any case, merge the article, like you intend to do before, and wait until someone has the sources we need to keep it seperate. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 01:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources for notability have been show on a world-wide basis, no less. Another case where the sources can be found if someone actually looks. Better idea is to look before nominating. Even better, of course, is to look when writing the article in the first. DGG (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect Absolutely no need to delete here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Strong keep Passing reference in 14 articles on google news, 98,300 ghits, a short article [1]. Certainly seems like it's got serious potential for notability. Being a playable character in smash brothers should probably define notability anyways.... Hobit (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I was bad I just searched, didn't read the article. After a (quick) reading, I'd say this is an obvious keep. Notability firmly established by article. Independent secondary sources, are clear and and history of the character makes it an easy keep.Hobit (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that the article you are referring to is a verbatim regurgitation of the nintendo website, and therefore does not grant notability. seresin || wasn't he just...? 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hummm, maybe I'm blind, but it seems to me it is pointing to the nintindo website, not a quoting it. Can you point me to the site at nintendo where the text came from? Hobit (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It was not linked. However, they themselves claimed it was verbatim: "Below, we've provided a description of Meta Knight of Kirby fame, quoted verbatim from the site." The only original content on that page was to say that the nintendo website had been updated with the below information. seresin || wasn't he just...? 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. The article has plenty of real-world information: the whole introduction and the infobox. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails WP:NOT and the secondary sources do not provide any evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Which part of WP:NOT are you referring to? Hobit (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How the hell does it fail any part of WP:NOT? Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge We don't need a seperate article for this character but there is some relevant information in the article that sould be kept. There is no need to delete but the information should be merged to characters in the Kirby video game series Looneyman (talk) 19:13, 25 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.