# Talk:Herobrine

WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WAX are irrelevant, the fact that a obscure Minecraft reference can get an article and featured on WP:DYK when one of the most popular characters of the 90s got redirected means that the notability policy is broken beyond repair, and Wikipedia is no longer trustable on what is considered "notable". Well i'm declaring now that my donation money is "not notable", and will not be given to Wikipedia any more. Consider me {{RETIRED}}. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if the IP will see this, but posting just in case. You're entitled to believe this, but have you considered that the reason why Herobrine has an article while Diddy Kong does not is because more reliable sources have covered the former than the latter? It's not like we wouldn't create one on Diddy even if there were more good sources. Rather, the issue isn't just Wikipedia's fault, but instead the mainstream press and academia for not covering Diddy in the first place. I think more people would benefit from directing this criticism towards news outlets, because they can often let some topics slip through the cracks. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
If you are here to bitch rather than build an encyclopedia and respect its policies, then your your retirement means nothing to us, nor does the twenty dollars you spent paying for Jimmy's morning coffee. Assuming this is who I think it is, you literally promoted the Super Mario Wiki article for King K. Rool over Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not built for fandoms or cruft related to them, and that's exactly what your fandom wikia's and series-specific wikis are for. The two serve different purposes. What gets coverage is what gets coverage and we do not dictate that, and if you truly object to a policy that's been in place for two decades, then the talk page of a so-called "obscure Minecraft reference" is not the place to make your voice heard. λ NegativeMP1 20:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
If I may, the fact that you think Herobrine is obscure suggests that your perspective is pretty clouded by your own personal biases. Just as a point of comparison, Herobrine's page views are approximately 12,000-large over the past 30 days. Luigi's page views are approximately 25,000 for the same time period. In a Google search, Herobrine is estimated to appear in 14 million results. By comparison, Diddy Kong appears in 4 million. You can't even argue that Diddy Kong has residual icon status from Mario Kart, because he's in only a handful of them, with the only one he's available in from the start being Double Dash even! What really defines Diddy Kong as one of the most popular character of the 90s anyway? He's playable in only four games of note, and while they're popular, he's not nearly as popular as you're acting. For one, just because he is in popular games doesn't make him popular himself. Also, think about the characters that were introduced in the 90s. Ryu? Sonic? Yoshi? Kirby? Cloud Strife? Kazuya Mishima? Wario? Kerrigan? Rayman? Chris Redfield, Jill Valentine, Claire Redfield, Leon S. Kennedy? Reimu Hakurei? Lara Croft? Diablo? Gordon Freeman? Spyro the Dragon? Crash Bandicoot? In many ways, they are at comparable popularity levels or even higher to Diddy Kong.
I feel like you're allowing your own personal biases to inflate the popularity of things you like, and deflate the popularity of things you are not interested in. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Character articles are a minefield at the moment, but this is such a WP:NOTHERE attitude. If you can find more sources to make Diddy Kong self-evidently notable, find them. If you can't, work with WP:VG to think about how notability standards for character articles could be better approached. Passive aggression achieves nothing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that you can't retire because you have never created an account in the first place. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 20:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Here. Conference papers are also not peer-reviewed. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 04:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

My edit summary got cut off, so I will post it here.
For the video game characters task force: This "character" is quite niche, and certainly not Mid-Importance. His impact is exclusive to Minecraft, most of the reception used to show outside impact is made up of listicles, and he never actually appears in a video game. Barely anyone who isn't a Minecraft fan could identify this character, and I guarantee he would not be easily identified by a good number of people who are Minecraft fans.
For the Internet culture WikiProject: Herobrine as a meme is confined almost entirely to Minecraft, and is not even that prevalent within the Minecraft community. WikiProject Internet Culture has an importance scale, and Herobrine does not get above Low-Importance.
QuicoleJR (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree with your assessment. not even that prevalent within the Minecraft community. Is there any proof of this? He is probably the most famous character apart from Steve, Alex, the Creeper. Minecraft update logs always included "removed herobrine". —Panamitsu (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I can agree with being demoted on the project-wide importance rating, same with Internet culture to some extent, but I think he'd warrant at least Mid-importance on the task force. I mean, most people that played Minecraft know what Herobrine is, and that around a hundred million people (monthly). Obviously, not every single one of them know who the character is, but even if it was only 50-60% that's still a lot. Mid-importance I think is warranted. λ NegativeMP1 22:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I have brought him back up to Mid for the task force, but I still stand by my other changes. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I love when someone says something like “this is the most popular one after the popular ones” 2007GabrielT (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herobrine/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 23:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 14:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead

The last sentence feels like it could be worked into the first sentence of the second paragraph
Done.
Origins and characteristics

The section seems to inconsistently framed things in the first section as a claim or implying that something actually happened (like "the author found their posts removed" and the message from Herobrine) without clarification whether these things were part of the creepypaste concept by the poster
Attempted to clarify some things.
Reception and legacy

Is notorious the right word for him?
Adjusted to "notable".
Clarify that the book is fan-made
Done.
Spotcheck

Checked [1]; the source does not seem to verify that there was merchandise by Mojang
Removed that bit.
Checked [2]; looks fine.
Checked [3]; looks fine.
Checked [4]; looks fine.
@Cukie Gherkin: Thanks for reviewing! I've addressed everything above. λ NegativeMP1 18:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Lookin' good. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)