Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klonoa

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. BJ^Talk 01:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klonoa

Full of original reasearch, almost entirely devoid of sources and out-of-universe notability. He's cute though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see two sources, though I cannot evaluate them. DGG (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's valid, it's just flawed. Don't delete it, fix it.--76.10.75.168 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Pretty well known video game character. KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE. Reliable sources need to be pointed out as such to indicate notability; just saying that it is does not hold water in an AfD discussion. MuZemike (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced, and being the main characater in a large number of games is a clear indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**An article written by "IGN Staff" does not strike as a reliable source in my view of the guideline. MuZemike (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The character does not establish notability using reliable third party sources, so it does not need an article. The one important source is already contained within Klonoa: Door to Phantomile. TTN (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note — I believe Klonoa here refers to the video game character, not the video game series, so as to not get confused. MuZemike (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Snowball Delete — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guntz looks like it's headed for the bin. (I also recommended there that someone look at this for deletion as it does have the same exact problems as Guntz.) MuZemike (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A gross misappropriation of the term 'snowball'. You're in the mood of shoving WP:ITSNOTABLE in our faces, yet clearly ignore WP:ALLORNOTHING on the same page. SashaNein (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Klonoa" the character is iffy notability-wise, yes, and does not need his own article until proven otherwise. However, the Klonoa page should actually be about the notable video game franchise "Klonoa", and it currently halfway is.
In order to be encyclopedic, the page needs rewritten to focus on the series, with the main character as a major aspect of that topic, rather than primarily on the character with the series as a sidenote. But while the current page is written primarily about the character, it also contains other useful elements such as the gameplay descriptions, the "Klonoa series games" section, and the listing of Klonoa crossover titles that make it a reasonable basis for the eventual article on the Klonoa series.
In conclusion, the Klonoa page is currently a misfocused draft of an article on a notable subject with the same title. But since the article about the series will need to exist eventually, and the current article contains enough of the content that will eventually be in that page so as to be useful to readers (minorly) and future editors (majorly), I believe it should be Kept and reframed. I would volunteer to write it myself, but I personally know little about the series, so that would be infeasible. I would be willing to do what I can though, by trimming the unnecessary bio details and writing a new lead that makes it clear the article is about the series. --erachima talk 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a character page, keep as a franchise page (like for example Bridget Jones) => Keep. Lose all the OR and character-related PLOT, but everything starting with the "Klonoa series games" section seems alright. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment — I would be willing to change to keep provided all material except the Klonoa series games section be removed, as all other sections talk strictly about the character and provides little or no context to the series as a whole. MuZemike (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

- The other appearances section is trivia and should be removed, and the other characters section needs a rewrite as it is in-universe and not very encyclopedic. MuZemike (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per five pillars. Just kidding. Keep not because of the 5 Pillars nonsense, but because that this character has the chance for notability, he just needs some clean-up. AFD is not a way to clean-up an article. ZeroGiga (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Oh, don't remind us of that tripe again! MuZemike (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Gosh Muzemike, let's not get ad hominem shall we? ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/expand/shif focus/whatever as per SGeureka and erachima actually. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — I strike all my above comments as it is clear that I have no clue of what I am talking about. I'm going to have some of that tripe, now. MuZemike (talk) 19:56, 25 September 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.