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. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prinny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This fictional species does not establish notability independent of Disgaea (series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and everything relevant is already covered within the setting section of the main article. TTN (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure in-universe content; no notability. Eusebeus (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's stopping us from putting it in universe with a merge or a redirect? -= Mgm|^(talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Merge & rd would be fine too per mgm. Eusebeus (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the nominator did nothing to address the secondary sources mentioned at the bottom of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The first is a minor quote with absolutely no significance, and the other is a piece of merchandise already covered in the main article. There is really nothing to address. TTN (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep another suitable combination article. Much better than doing it individually for the games, and possibly there is some duplication in those articles to be removed. There is no consensus that articles like these need "real world" information. There is probably material in the various reviews. I ask once more, as many of us have asked, for the meaning of "no current assertion for future improvement of the article" and how that relates to any WP policy. I have not yet understood the plain meaning of that statement, and i am puzzled that it is still being used. Maybe its relevant and important and a reason for deletion, but I need first o know what is being asserted by it. DGG (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that since a recently-announced PSP game has one as the playable character this particular critter is going to get a lot more relevant. Articles like this penny arcade one (note that it even links to the article here), along with the accompanying cartoon, details of a toy here and some hints that further material could be found in game reviews, anime reviews and manga reviews means that there's at least a chance it could be improved. Having these extra media gives a lot more opportunity for sources to be out there. All that said there were no particularly strong sources from a modest search, how about we give it a chance to improve considering the upcoming game, and if it doesn't then looking at a merge? Someoneanother 03:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having another poke around, Nippon Ichi apparently host Tipsy Prinny Nights (press conferences), Prinny hats!, more merchandise. You can't hit a game review or interview without prinnies being mentioned somewhere, I'm sure there's something that can be hammered out of this lot.. Someoneanother 04:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per MGM, DGG and Someanother -- hey, they got here first and said it best, so why should I repeat what was already stated? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's a little bit of a fine line, there's a compelling argument from the nominator. But I think there is also the potential to back up some notability claims here. I honestly think the article could be improved to make it meet our standards. I think someoneanother's points are particularly compelling. There's, at least, a strong case that a well referenced article could be developed.Icemotoboy (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per reasons above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Has anyone actually looked at this from a the viewpoint of properly managing this information instead of basing everything upon mainly trivial sources? The fictional details fit in the main article. Along with Prinny related merchandise, there are various other figurines and collectibles, which should covered in the main article. The second reception paragraph is just made up of two trivial quotes and a completely unnecessary reference to Penny Arcade (video game web comics are never a source of reception). TTN (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination comes at a time when the one event which could fundamentally change this group of characters' notability and relevancy is in the middle of happening, the PSP game starring the prinnies isn't just announced, it's released in Japan and due for an American release in February. With that event looming there's no point in proceeding as if it wasn't. Some bizarre wording which existed (and probably still does) in the article, the poor state of referencing and the lack of wikiproject templates on the talk page suggest that this article hasn't received a lot of attention from editors seeking to wikify it. That being the case, it's not surprising that the sourcing is still not stellar since we've had a standing-start to try and do anything with it during the AFD. Penny Arcade is a noted (and notable) video game commentator who have covered this character within an article and an accompanying cartoon, there's no reason they can't be combined and used in this capacity, if it was some non-notable entity on a MySpace page then that would be fair enough. Allowing this event to pass so that we can clearly see if it's a solid stand-alone article or not is a win-win. Either it becomes a decent article or the content is further improved and cited for a clean merge, so what's the hurry? Someoneanother 15:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It appears to have some reliable third-party coverage. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: The coverage found verges on trivial, and WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable third-party sources to merit inclusion. But I'm getting the feeling that more stuff is out there, or will be soon. And if there isn't, then this article can be summarized and merged into another article. No prejudice against merging or even AFDing it if no further WP:N-appropriate sources are found. Randomran (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, does getting your own spinoff game establish notability? Prinnys appear to be a mascot for the game series, and the impending US release of the spinoff game may increase Prinny related information and sources. ViperSnake151 21:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, getting your own spinoff game does not establish notability. Notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. A new video game would be a primary source. As with all video game articles, to get its own article the information must go beyond the plot of the game and the gameplay elements. Although there may be more written when the game comes out, we cannot predict what will be written, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deleting the article does not prevent it from being recreated should sufficient sources be produced in the future, but we need to know those sources are available, we can't just guess that they're out there. Jay32183 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 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.