![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 August 17. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. While the pure votecount is evenly matched on each side, Herostratus's comment is pretty much a delete !vote, and vinciusmc/meshach's proofs by assertion fail to impress. I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree. Stifle ( talk) 10:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom, contested prod. The article was previously unreferenced and consisting entirely of plot summary and trivia. The user who contested the prod added three references which contain little more than the same plot summary and trivia. One of them is a primary source and the other two are not reliable secondary sources. Still no evidence that this episode is particularly notable. Corporation Cart ( talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 August 17. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. While the pure votecount is evenly matched on each side, Herostratus's comment is pretty much a delete !vote, and vinciusmc/meshach's proofs by assertion fail to impress. I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree. Stifle ( talk) 10:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom, contested prod. The article was previously unreferenced and consisting entirely of plot summary and trivia. The user who contested the prod added three references which contain little more than the same plot summary and trivia. One of them is a primary source and the other two are not reliable secondary sources. Still no evidence that this episode is particularly notable. Corporation Cart ( talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply