Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whispy Woods (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. Delete arguments rather weak, plus action on articles probably shouldn't be taken in the midst of an arbcom case. Wizardman 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whispy Woods
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a non-notable article that has already been merged as the result of a discussion. It has no reason to exist. TTN (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article was previously discussed at the end of October 2007, and the outcome was keep. So there is at least one reason for it to exist. I'm unclear whether you are arguing for deletion or for the article to remain as a redirect. Catchpole (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide Doc Strange (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not violate Wikipedia is not a game guide. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT does not apply to this article. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comment on Articles for deletion/Kracko. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a gameguide, especially not a non-notable one.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT does not apply to this article. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * delete/merge/redirect If text has been merged then we have to keep this article, but redirect it. However, the point stands, what is here should not be here in this form. The character is appropriately summed up in the list article, and additional plot summary seems to be excessive without real-world context. -- Ned Scott 07:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Prima Kirby 64 Guide (ISBN 0761530150) is a reliable source that Starblind mentioned in the previous AfD. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a guide. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT does not apply to this article. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Administrator Starblind's Keep vote on the first nomination. Hasn't even been three months since this was put to rest and now it's up on the chop block again. Easier to destroy than to create. WP:NOT doesn't even apply to this article, but deletionists are trudging through the list so fast that they don't even take the time to look into the actual subject at hand, leading to completely bunk deletion votes. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:21, 30 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.