Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uka Uka


 * 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, although users are certainly free to discuss merge. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Uka Uka

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable video game character with no real-world significance. Article is almost entirely game plot regurgitation, Original research "supported" by a glut of game quotes. Tagged as such and suggested merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Tagging was labeled vandalism. On closer inspect, the list of character covers this one adequately enough, so merge is probably not needed anyway. Collectonian (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable character. Plot summary is way to long, the sections that refer to character development are unsourced. All sources used are primary sources. I doubt there are any reliables 3rd party sources to sources this article. Ridernyc (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He is not "non-notable", never has been and never will be. He easily fulfills the criteria set-out. Plus you're insisting we delete something a simple edit would fix. CBFan (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * if it can be fixed with a simple edit stop fighting with everyone and fix it. Ridernyc (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We did that, and Collectonian blatantly deleted it. Realisticly, if you want to delete Uka Uka's article so badly, then you'd have to delete EVERYONE else's articles except Crash's and possibly Cortex's, because otherwise it promotes biasey. And don't say that, it's uncivil and not very professional. CBFan (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff to backup your unfounded accusation that I deleted your attempts to provide REAL-WORLD notability. Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will, ONCE you post proof of REAL-WORLD notability for any OTHER fictional character. You're clearly being biased. CBFan (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said, CBFan. Collectonian, darling, no offence but do you have some sort of pathological grudge against fictional characters who have not been heard of by every human being on the face of the planet? Saying that Uka Uka is a non-notable fictional character is preposterous, he's a major antagonist from a well-known and successful game series which has had quite a bit of merchandise. There is no original research because all the statements in the article are backed up with quotes from the game series to support them. There are references, citations and external links and all the allusions made to Uka Uka's personality are drawn from a variety of information provided by the games themselves and the production notes. None of this is original research at all. Furthermore the references to the plot all describe Uka Uka's role in the games and his effect on the storyline. It also contains a short section on his character's creation and a long and very interesting section on his personality. If you're going to delete the article on Uka Uka you might as well delete Ganon as well. Not that that would be such a bad thing. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be noted that CBFan has canvassed other users to "save" this article, including: User talk:Freqrexy, User talk:Illustrious One‎, and User talk:Cat's Tuxedo‎. Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that I never did anything of the sort, and that Collectonian is telling lies about me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBFan (talk • contribs) 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He most certainly is not. You are canvassing, which is inappropriate. In addition removing others' comments is extremely inappropriate. I suggest you desist. I (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are beating a dead horse, because we've already made a compromise. CBFan (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. As the nominator, I still stand by this AfD, and I stand by my ANI report of your behavior in this whole affair.  My recent edits on the remaining articles is simply finishing the plan I had started before this mess started, per your implication that you would not block it, and an attempt to do what was unable to be done here. Collectonian (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And, as I told you, I am no longer interested in continuing this silly affair now that we've made a compromise. I'm now for merging, not keeping. CBFan (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Collectonian (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any secondary sources that establish notability as required by Notability and Notability (fiction). If this character has real-world notability, could you please provide evidence of such? The article needs more out-of-universe information—it currently has only two paragraphs of real-world content at a glance, and even this is filled with unsourced speculation ("It is thereby possible that Uka Uka's (and Aku Aku's) voice is computer-generated") and generic text that fluffs up the paragraph, such as "a number of different concept designs were conceived...before the final design was decided on", which could be said about any video game character, really. Problems like this are typically associated with non-notable characters, which I suspect this might be.  Pagra shtak  17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have yet to provide proof, not only as to why you want only Uka Uka deleted, but also as to why you don't want every fictional character who has an article deleted. Uka Uka is a video game character. He is not a real character. He exists in a video game universe. You have a very poor argument on your behalf, which, as far as I can make out, is "He is a video game character so he can't have an article". And, as I've said before, and as many Crash fans will agree with, Uka Uka has appeared in 10 games, 4 of which were canon, so he is easily notable. CBFan (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, did I ever say I want the article deleted? Please don't put words in my mouth, it's incredibly rude. Secondly, the burden of proof lies in the other direction—it falls upon the supporters of the article to prove notability. All I did was ask for someone to provide evidence of notability, as required by Notability and Notability (fiction), but I have yet to see it. That the character has been in 10 games does not show notability, as the games are not secondary sources.  Pagra shtak  20:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a simple case of mistaken identity, there's no need to flip. Besides, we've reached a workable agreement. CBFan (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge for the above reasons.  Pagra shtak  20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - Compromise already sussed out between myself and Collectionian, there is no longer any need for this as far as I'm concerned. CBFan
 * For God's sake, what are you nutters on? This is a brilliant article about a notable character from a notable computer game and you've got it in for him. If you're going to delete the Uka Uka article you're going to have to delete the Crash article, the Cortex article, the Coco article and all those other Crash Bandicoot articles. It would be the most ridiculous genodice since all the Fictional villains categories were deleted. --Illustrious One (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why we're merging them. Not Crash's article...his is staying. And before anyon says anything, I didn't even tell him anything concerning that one. CBFan (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But I think most people would agree that this article doesn't deserve to be merged. Uka Uka warrents an article of his own. --Illustrious One (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I thought it was already compromised several weeks ago that only various notable characters would end up getting articles. With Uka Uka appearing in four canon games and 6 spin-offs, that warrants more than enough information to build an article based on him when matched up to other characters. But if a merge has to happen, then that means another line would have to be drawn concerning which Crash characters would have their own articles and which would not. Freqrexy (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe there is enough real world information available to satisfy the relevant guidelines (WP:FICT, WP:GAMECRUFT). User:Krator (t c) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The motion is passed. Keep. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * no it hasn't. I don't see a clear consensus here; therefore, please allow this discussion to remain open so consensus may be reached. Terraxos (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I jumped to concusions. --Illustrious One (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, though, I personally support a Keep. Terraxos (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, consensus seems to be towards merge and not keep.  Pagra shtak  20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What about X?  Thin boy  00  @988, i.e. 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete or transwiki, This is a canonical example of gamecruft which would be an excellent featured article on a dedicated CB wiki but which has no place here. Defenders aren't covering themselves in glory by acting like five-year-olds while defending it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd agree with the Illustrious One that this boarders on a personal attack. I agree that some of those arguing for keep aren't on the best of behavior, but grouping all "defenders" as "five-year-olds" is a rather broad brush.  Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris Cunningham, kindly refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. --Illustrious One (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am relisting this, as the original listing has somehow been deleted from the December 27 log. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Now if there's one game that I haven't played in a long time, it's Crash Bandicoot 3. Jeez. Brings back memories.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Partial merge as above; there's some nice out-of-universe information here (voice actors, sketches, etc) but I would strip most of the in-game stuff; the Characteristics section, In-game history etc, as we are an encyclopedia and not a gaming wiki. There's not enough notability presented to warrant its own article - and by notability I mean the usual "independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage." Marasmusine (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support Marasmusine's solution, if not past experience showed me that it is usually just a small plot summary that is merged, while all the nice out-of-universe information is left out or put together in a "out of universe information" section at the top of the list article. The theory behind merges is that sometimes information is better presented in a large article (note my mergism userbox). I don't think that is the case here: the information on Uka Uka (which we all agree has some place in Wikipedia) is better presented in its own article. User:Krator (t c) 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection I agree. --Illustrious One (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be added in the series game characters article, not have a article of its own. Ihsbislns (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns
 * Keep Appears to be a major character in a major series.  Further the article is really quite strong, I'd hate to see it go.  Any merge involves a LOT of material.  Also, as a bit of trivia, 14,500 ghits on an English-only search...  Hobit (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't address the concerns of the nominator—namely the lack of real-world notability and over-reliance on plot repetition.  Pagra shtak  17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, a major character from a major series is notable. On the plot, I'm not too worried, WP:PLOT's major task is insuring that we don't end up with Readers Digest summaries here (see WP:PLOT talk page).  I don't think this is that or anything close to it.  Hobit (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. It is not sufficient to say "major character from a major series". You must show why this particular character is notable in the real world—not within the game series—and back it up with reliable secondary sources. If the character is indeed notable, this should be an easy task.  Pagra shtak  16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. If the base article is too long, spilling out makes sense.  It's the base article that matters for notability, the rest is just organization.  WP:NOTPAPER
 * WP:NOTPAPER is not a catch-all to add fancruft. There's a CB wiki on Wikia which would be a thousand times better to develop this articl on than WP is. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see latest draft of WP:FICT (in talk). General view is that spilling out can make sense if it helps the article.  While not binding (hey, WP:FICT isn't either) it shows the direction of consensus.  Hobit (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficiently notable.  Needs rewriting as per WP:WAF.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rudget . 14:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reliable, secondary sources do not appear to exist to establish notability. The article is also mostly WP:NOT without real-world context, so there is little content to merge elsewhere. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Aku Aku or delete, not notable on its own. I find it funny over two-thirds of the "references" are from the game. J I P  | Talk 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Still stuck trying to kill this boss, eh? There seem to be enough references out there to demonstrate that the world has noticed this character. Google Books, Google News. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - ok, when I searched, the news coverage mostly referred to a notable sailing boat. From your searches, there does appear to be significant news coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - significant media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant news coverage and other sources provided by various people above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:20, 5 January 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.