Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overgrow

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 02:57, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overgrow

Delete. I Poké-stubified a couple of these, but noticed there's already an article named Pokémon Abilities where these are listed. –Jonnabuz (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Meelar (talk) 09:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Apparently got unlisted from VfD, so I'm relisting it today. My vote is merge. Radiant_* 11:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pokémon Abilities, per WP:FICT. Minor Pokécruft of no significance outside the milieu and not much significance within it. I'm not sure the redirect would be appropriate, but I expect the Pokéfanatics will insist that this general-purpose encyclopedia's readers need to be able to find this meaning of this word in a search. Barno 18:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I object to the implication that wikipedia should not aspire to specialist-level coverage of mineralogy. Kappa 23:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: a truly general-purpose encyclopaedia has extensive coverage of Pokemon. Klonimus 02:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect this and any others found as per WP:FICT. --Carnildo 22:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 06:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Pokémon Abilities as per WP:FICT. -- Lochaber 16:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.