Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbids


 * 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   redirect to Raving Rabbids. Delete and redirect. The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rabbids

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

As with Edward Carnby, there is a history on the history of this article between (stubby) article and a redirect. Following requests at RfPP to protect the page as a redirect, I thought it needed to come here for the community to make a decision on whether the page should stay, be deleted or be a redirect (which can then be enforced by protection if necessary). I have no opinion either way. Ged UK  13:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Raving Rabbids, which is basically the same article but better. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - can you please explain why you would not want a deletion then redirect, as there are persistent editing wars? Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 22:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Raving Rabbids. As stated, that article contains the same information, only well sourced, and it would be redundant to keep this as its own article.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete then redirect - the warring needs to stop, and this is a good way to do so without losing any information. Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 22:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh, doesn't deletion imply loss of information? If the warring needs to stop, convert the article into a fully-protected redirect to Raving Rabbids (might get away with just semi-protection) unless the content languishing in the history has some serious justification for deletion like being a copyvio or severe BLP issue. I doubt it's either so a protected redirect should be fine. Interestingly, the singular Rabbid has been a redirect since 2009, no warring. tutterMouse (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Raving Rabbids. There is already another well-sourced article on the topic, and the title is a possible search term. Do we really need two articles on the same topic? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Raving Rabbids. Pretty redundant to the article about the game series without any clear and separate notability. Better to cover it in context. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect - I don't see any sourced information in the history that would be useful for keeping and merging. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2012 (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.