Oppose, if articles like Fearow and Butterfree can exist, and yet be so short, how does GEKKO not qualify? I can probably understand the fish being redirected, but this? Magiciandude (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. You know what? I actually came here to bitch about the fish actaully NOT having its own article, but magiciandude makes a terrificly fantastic splendiforous point :) Kperfekt722 (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The fish clause doesn't really help the cause (haha, rhymes). But it has a trophy and the fish doesn't right? If the fish does, then it deserves it's own article. But that is a different argument for another page.--Oxico (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Opposse. I oppose because of the Origin of the GEKKO. I am adding a trivia section to the article. In it will be my reason why I oppose. MarioGalaxy (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.