Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkrai


 * 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   redirect despite the fact that there are objections, no one has provided any reliable sources which establishes the notability of the subject independently. Therefore, this article can only stand as a redirect at the most. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Darkrai

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of game guide material, unnecessary plot summary, and original research. TTN (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to list, and protect the redirect. How on earth are these things coming back? The standards for notability are quite clear: multiple, independent, third-party sources need to examine the topic directly and in detail. That standard hasn't been met for the most well-known Pokemon, with the sole exception of Pikachu. Bulbasaur doesn't meet it, and people have been trying for 6 years to find sources. For an also-ran like Darkrai, it can be presumed that that standard will never be met. In the event that people actually find multiple, independent, third-party sources that address this character directly and in detail, they can go to WP:RFPP and request that the redirect be unprotected.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions.  MuZemike  ( talk ) 15:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * provisional weak keep- I get the arguments. However, since the subject was the title character in the movie Rise of Darkrai, I would think it would have received some articles in japanese, in relation to the film. If any of these articles, should they exist, be found, translated, and referenced in the article, then that would establish notability. That said, I don't speak or read a hint of Japanese, so I don't know if I'm right or just being optimistic, hence the provisional part of my vote. If an effort is made, and nothing is found, then I have no objection to a redirect. As an aside though, I wonder why this was even brought here? Isn't standard procedure for individual pokemon to redirect to the appropriate list? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was redirected to the list. Pokemon fans have been edit-warring it back into existence since May, and, despite the flawless logic of your assertion, they haven't found a single independent, third-party source that examines Darkrai. I have no objection to them resurrecting the article after such sources have been found, but this is a good example of why these redirects need to be protected. It only takes one fan to start an edit war, and, despite that fact that most Pokemon aren't individually notable, they all have at least one fan.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize it was a redirect previously. I'm not saying it wasn't. All i'm saying is that there might be potential for a real article here. The second part was asking why, if it was a redirect before, why it wasn't simply turned back into a redirect instead of bringing it here in the first place? I get that there are edit wars and all over this. And personaly, I do get your reasoning for wanting the average pokemon to be a redirect to the list, as the average one, even if they have plenty of in-universe notability, just aren't that notable out of universe. I'm just trying to make a couple of points: 1- it IS possible that this particular one has out of universe notability, and 2- was it really necessary to bring this up for deletion? Wouldn't Dispute resolution have been better? And like I said- if nothing is found, I have zero objection to turning it back into a redirect and being done with the matter. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish there was a better process for making a redirect stick. I've been trying to come up with one, but as it stands, AFD is the only path that works. The nominator did attempt to restore the redirect three times before giving up and bringing it here.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems notable enough especially being a title character in a movie. (Nintendofootball (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Redirect to Pokemon: The Rise of Darkrai — There is only one reliable source that provides some coverage about the Pokemon itself, but there is nothing that even mentions the Darkrai in any of the other sources besides the German flyer, which does not count as reliable. I also agree with the above and would not oppose to semi-protection as the revert warring has been perpetuated by IPs. (However, that can be easily brought up at WP:RFPP.) MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD isn't the place to resolve an edit war. The nom has been sending pretty much every article that someone reverts his redirects to AfD. That's not what it is for.  Also, title "character" of a movie indicates some notability.  Hobit (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment Discussion is certainly preferable to edit warring. AfD is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted, whether we support deletion, keeping, or anything in between. If someone reverts a redirect, soliciting discussion is exactly the right approach. Randomran (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle, but not all discussion should be at AfD. User:Kww started a discussion on my talk page about what might be the right thing to do.  I replied on his (sorry if gender is wrong) talk page. I think we need an answer to this, but AfD isn't the answer at the moment.  At the least the problem is that only one "side" can bring things here.  Bringing something to AfD you don't want deleted is generally considered pointy.  Hobit (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know we're getting off topic... but I just don't see what's wrong with discussing at AFD, which is what it's designed for. You could always improve the articles that you don't want deleted (e.g. add appropriate sources), to avoid an AFD or build support for keeping. Randomran (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And staying off topic: as noted in another thread, when in a "redirect war" with TTN or some other user can I bring something here if I don't want it to be a redirect (want a keep result?) I think the answer is no.  And so why should the other side, which is pushing for redirect, be able to come here to get consensus?  I could of course lie, and and bring things here I want to keep, but that would be pointy at best. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or redirect to a suitable list of pokemon, or the specific game in which it appears. Lacks sufficient sources to meet our notability guideline, but bare sourcing at the moment makes a compromise reasonable. Randomran (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect somewhere (movie's my first choice) or maybe turn into a disambig; three unrelated plot summaries and a basic description is still entirely in-universe, and equally redundant with information found elsewhere. Nifboy (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Pokémon (481-493), nothing to merge. Everything is either plot, OR, general Pokémon franchise information, and that he is available as a toy, which is true for all Pokémon. Seeing how much difficulty much more prominent Pokémon have had to demonstrate notability, I doubt that even having a movie named after him is going to help. – sgeureka t•c 07:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are several Pokémon which are actually individually notable; this is one. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It's simply impossible to get a description of a fictional character without using attributes from it own fictional universe.MRFraga (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources A few sources: provides some details,  is really about the movie, but provides some data.  Primary sources can be used for the rest... Hobit (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Passing mentions at best. Falls well short of being a direct and detailed examination of the topic.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment With regard to game guides: Wikipedia is not a game guide, but a game guide published by someone other than the creators of Pokemon should be a valid secondary source for the purpose of documenting verifiable information about each Pokemon.  Also, the existence of such guides from several different 3rd parties should be evidence of the notability of the creative ideas and characters portrayed, just as it is for Star Wars characters or other characters from a notable copyrighted source.  take a look at  the 4000+ books on Amazon published by independent publishers such as Scholastic, Prima, Triumph Books, Troll Communications, and Beckett Pubns, as well as the expected Viz Media, Brady Games and Nintendo. Felisse (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If those are licensed (and I'm sure some are) independence becomes questionable. That said, some of them aren't (many of the game guides in particular).  So those do count. Hobit (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worse than "some of them are [licensed]". I've looked before, and so far as I have been able to determine, all of them are licensed. The Scholastic sources are all licensed by Nintendo. The Prima guide is licensed by Nintendo. The Nintendo guides are obviously not independent. If you sincerely believe that one of those 4000+ books on Amazon is independent and contains information on Darkrai, please indicate which one. I've spent many hours looking for an independent source on many individual Pokemon, and haven't found one yet.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * appears to be independent (but older this this one)., all look good.   includes 19 books.  Some are price guides, one looks self published.  But 19 "unofficial" books... Hobit (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first (book) link should have stuff on this one because it includes the set it came out in. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The website is described as a game guide, which covers individual Pokemon as part of an exhaustive treatment. Guides that strive for exhaustive coverage do not provide evidence of notability for the individual things described ... that's the nature of exhaustive coverage. As for the information contained, it's a game guide, and contains material not suitable for Wikipedia The two Beckett price guides are collectors value guides. Your fourth is a great one for establishing the notability of the Pokemon franchise, which is not and never has been in question. It doesn't cover Darkrai at all. If I look for my nemesis, Bulbasaur, it gets mentioned one time as a part of a list of starter Pokemon. It covers the concept of Pokemon, the marketing of Pokemon, but doesn't cover individual Pokemon in any detail.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:N says anything about "exhaustive coverage" being a strike against a source. It has to be detailed, not exclusive. That Beckett guide claims to be significantly more than a price guide.... Hobit (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got to go play "search through the policies" again, because someone has been shuffling a few key sentences. It doesn't convey notability for the same reason a phone book doesn't: since my phone company publishes a complete list of every person and business on my island, being listed in their directory isn't an argument for my notability.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As not every fictional character has a write-up like this (in fact very very few), it could also mean that they are all notable. Just saying.  Hobit (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.