Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby: Right Back at Ya!

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 snow keep. If the tone is problematic, just fix it! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Kirby: Right Back at Ya!

Kirby: Right Back at Ya! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find video game sources: "Kirby: Right Back at Ya!" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This page, and the corresponding List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes read as an unambiguous promotional fansite and should be deleted it violates WP:NOTPROMOTION. Technical 13 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

* Delete as proposer. Technical 13 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) The nominator doesn't need to post delete. Dream Focus 04:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm not seeing any kind of promotion at all in either article. If there's any promotional language in them, they should just be edited, and not deleted. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: I see no promotions at all in the articles, just some episode summaries, air dates, and language titles. As well as information for stuff relating to and about the Kirby Franchise also, no solid argument for deletion in anyway at all, per WP:UGLY. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: The article certainly goes to excessive, unsourced detail on some of its subject matter, but that does not make it promotional; it's not necessarily advertising the show. Not solid grounds for deletion per WP:UGLY. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 17:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - AFD is not clean up. The article is not in great shape, but that can be fixed. An official anime off a long-running video game series like this is easly going to meet the notability guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per ThomasO1989's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep the promotion issue can be fixed by editorial means and I highly doubt that there are any questions regarding the article meeting WP:N. At worst the article may need an overhaul but that a job for the talk page not AFD.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This should be a speedy close. Bad nomination. No valid reason given to delete it. A show with a hundred episodes played on major stations is going to be notable. Dream Focus 04:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Snow Keep Any article can be viewed as promoting its subject, but that is never a reason to delete when the subject is obviously notable. It would be criminal to destroy such a well written and attractively illustrated article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - the subject is obviously notable, and that's what matters. AfD is not cleanup. The article has some sourcing issues, but its not blatantly promoting its subject. Satellizer el Bridget ^ツ 11:44, 8 May 2013 (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.