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 delete. --Coredesat 06:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mudkip egg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The topic has absolutely no notability, is linked to by no other articles, and information that was in this article originally was removed from the main article. ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that when I added the AfD template, the article was a re-direct to Mudkip, the main article. I added the AfD template because I don't feel it has to be there. Mudkip egg wasn't linked to by anything, so nobody is going to click on it anyway. There isn't any need for this to be a re-direct, so why does it need to be an article anyway, even if it only consists of a re-direct? ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the redirect; I was simply being bold. I didn't notice your comment until I tried to close the AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was adding this message at the same time that you re-directed it. But I do think a Speedy Delete would be a better route, and it would sure be faster. I didn't think of it earlier because I kinda have a tendency to use AfD's. ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per Redirects for discussion guidelines, "nothing links here" isn't a reason to delete a redirect. cab 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is blank now, but the info that was in it belonged in the Mudkip article. DraxusD 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main article There's absolutely no reason why a Pokemon EGG needs its own Pokemon article. Delete as per WP:Content fork. -WarthogDemon 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as ((db-empty)), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment used to be non-empty, then blanked by someone else [1] cab 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless fork of Mudkip. Creator's comment in this edit [2] clearly indicates the reason he created this article is because he couldn't get editors of another article to accept his edits. cab 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless. Naufana : talk 05:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not notable. Keep in mudkip article. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as poke-cruft; then delete lead article (mudkip) likewise, and so, with the precedent established, delete all poke-cruft articles -- SockpuppetSamuelson 11:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This is not a debate about pokecruft Pokemon in general, and the pokemon themselves are not going to be deleted. Such a deletion of articles has already been discussed for the most part on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stantler. -WarthogDemon 03:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with prejudice. This boils down to essentially a rather centric forkipe of Pokémon game mechanics and Mudkip, and reading over the creator's talk page, where this is discussed, it seems he thinks that Mudkip eggs are in and of themselves notable. They're no more notable than Togepi's egg. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:11, 10 July 2007 (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.