Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kirby series characters


 * 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 with no prejudice regarding any future nomination. Next time, how about giving someone more than 5 minutes unless you want to argue that the basis for the article is flawed. Don't nominate an article based on its content after 5 minutes. —Doug Bell talk 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Kirby series characters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Just links to other articles Magistrand Sign Here! My Talk 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously right now it's a stub that's being worked on. It's not just links to other articles, some of the content is in this article itself. Nardman1 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean come on, you put this up for afd 5 minutes after it was created. Nardman1 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a good faith nom, but I do not think it should succeed - it is a very stubby article, and it was intended to be expanded, not to be a list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A little hasty and harsh on the nom, but it's another list that seems to be better served by a category, anyway. Arkyan 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Kirby franchise is one of the biggest in gaming. Deserves an article no less than the list of Mario, Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, or Zelda characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, categories are of no help for the majority of the articles; for instance, the category doesn't give a description of Marx. This is a list of characters with detailed information, the category argument doesn't apply. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable franchise, the list has a lot of potential and is under the process of development, and KIRBY IS AWESOME!!!!  --Nevhood 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because I really want to redirect a bunch of those minor characters here. Nifboy 05:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is already forming into far more than a list. I don't understand the preoccupation to jump on new articles at their inception because they do not yet meet full wikipedia quality standards.  We should encourage development; not seek to destroy it. Bbagot 06:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's "New pages patrol", not "Patrol pages made a few days ago." Nifboy 15:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the goal is to guide and help mature. What are they doing here under deletion?  Improvement is mentioned before deletion and even then under deletion it says "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days." Bbagot 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * DELETE Who keeps remaking this page? It took me WEEKS to get it deleted last time! There is already a category listing all the Kirby chars. We don't need a huge, ugly, bloated page of information that is already listed several times in other places. We have Template:Kirby_characters and Category:Kirby_characters There are simply too many characters too list them all on one page. That's why you divide it up.
 * There is NO need for this page, it's nothing but redundant. It's too much of a hassle to keep the information consistent between pages. We have a page for enemies, a page for bosses, and certain characters already have their own pages. Every character already has it's own listing. Don't over complicate things. Ivyna J. Spyder 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Under what name was it listed earlier and what deletion process removed it? Nardman1 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was called Kirby_series_characters then. The discussion for deleting it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kirby_series_characters It was just as big and unwieldy! It just makes so much more sense to have things organized into smaller sections instead of LISTZILLA here. Ivyna J. Spyder 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Keep Eliminating some of the more unnotable characters will eliminate the initial confusion I had regarding the significance of the article. --ArrEmmDee 03:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'd rather wipe some of the more catalog-esque lists above and redirect them here. Take a page from Monsters of Final Fantasy, which used to look like this until it was spread across three pages, and ultimately cut down to something like a quarter of what it used to list. Nifboy 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete What's the point of this list if most (all of them, actually) of these characters are already on other lists? Not to mention that this list seems to created on the basis that these are 'major' characters, which is rather unecessary and pointless when there are already five other lists of characters, as ArrEmmDee stated. - DisasterKirby 03:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This treats several main characters(like Dedede, Tiff, etc.) like minor characters. I think they're good with just their main articles. I think another list should be made with the REAL minor characters. BamYap 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And what are you talking about? This list is particularly SHORT in comparison with many other video game character lists. How in the world is this even remotely long? We don't have lists of bosses for other games, and we definitely don't have one for mini-bosses. We don't need one for animal friends, since only six characters apply to that label. The only two lists that are of any worth are the list of enemies and the list of characters. And considering that you are fighting me tooth and nail over me shortening a list of enemies (which has to be twice the size of this article), I'm shocked you're saying "Delete this article because it's too long". How can you call this listzilla and oppose its existence when you are all for a list of enemies which you refuse to allow the removal of less-notable enemies to shorten it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And not to be rude, but are you quite sane? This is done in ALL character lists. Legend of Zelda character list has Link on it, Mario list has Mario on it, Chrono Trigger list has Crono on it, Final Fantasy VI list has Terra on it. There is NOTHING wrong whatsoever with listing major articles on a list of characters just because of importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems to me that most, if not all of the data listed here is already available in other locations. You may argue that a list would condense unneeded categories into a single area. This is absurd, nay, preposterous! There are far too many characters, enemies, and bosses to be placed in a single list. You may claim that all of the information is not needed on this website, but you would still be incorrect. Is Wikipedia not an attempt to place as much information as possible in one website. Man cannot be the judge of what wisdom is declined and what is accepted. This video game franchise has as much of a right as anything else to exist. - Izzyisme 08:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, considering Wikipolicy says that Wikipedia is not an attempt to place as much information as possible in one web site, it's not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I assumed so based on the articles concerning the Legend of Zelda. If this article is to be kept, then all of the "Characters from Legend of Zelda (Insert game title here)" should be condensed into a single "Characters from Legend of Zelda" article. - Izzyisme 07:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't see a need to delete it. A suggestion: Figure out what you want the focus of the article to be. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:33, 24 February 2007 (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.