Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waddle Dee (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 Redirect to List of Kirby characters. We don't delete articles after merging, due to copyrights issue. - PeaceNT (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waddle Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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)[reply]

• Strong Keep Waddle Dee is a crucial character to the game. Tavix (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's completely irrelevant per WP:N (articles need reliable sources), so this should be discounted until Tavix updates his rational. TTN (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:N. May very well be crucial to the game (I disagree) but that in itself does not establish notability. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N. I don't even think it's that crucial to the game. More like a filler character. Either way, failing WP:N is enough.Metal Head (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect If it is already merged than just redirect. --Sin Harvest (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to repeat myself [1] but the same can be said for this: 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 07:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#PLOT, and WP:FICT. No secondary sources, no real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:27, 29 January 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.