Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eggman Nega


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Eggman Nega

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This character article asserts no real world ability and is filled with almost nothing but gamecruft. There are no proper sources as well. This article should be improve ASAP or it shouldn't exist. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – Needs to be improved is not a reason for deletion. Feel free to tag the piece for improvement but recommending an article for deletion that has been around for well over a year, is usually not recommended.  Regarding the sourcing, the article is sourced by the links back to the main articles. Do I believe Eggman Nega   is notable, no!  However, it seems like the gaming industry does and happy to say consensus rules. Shoessss |  Chat  15:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge - if not keep, I belive this would be more suited to being a note/section on the Doctor Eggman article, but otherwise, I don't understand this current witchhunt for videogame characters.  Doktor  Wilhelm   22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -It needs to be improved but he's a main charcter who shouldn't be ignored and he plays major parts that may be vital in the future.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -By all means keep he's been in over 3 video games and my beliefs are after 3 major roles the character should get his own article, (unless of course there's enough info.)Fairfieldfencer (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 16:37, 25 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.