| Revision as of 16:51, 14 September 2008 editRandomran (talk | contribs)9,686 edits creating AFD discussion page | Revision as of 17:45, 14 September 2008 edit undoElisabeth Rogan (talk | contribs)81 edits I asked a question.Next edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :{{la|Miscellaneous characters of Command & Conquer}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Miscellaneous characters of Command & Conquer}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources, which cannot be found. Thus, this article fails our ]. Past AFD stated that sources existed and to give this article time, but in due time the article has not found sources, giving weight to my finding that the only coverage of this topic is insignificant, or in inappropriate/unreliable/non-independent sources. ] (]) 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources, which cannot be found. Thus, this article fails our ]. Past AFD stated that sources existed and to give this article time, but in due time the article has not found sources, giving weight to my finding that the only coverage of this topic is insignificant, or in inappropriate/unreliable/non-independent sources. ] (]) 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *This one has me confused, because if a past discussion already closed as '''keep''', I do not see how someone can start a second discussion? --] (]) 17:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:45, 14 September 2008
Miscellaneous characters of Command & Conquer
AfDs for this article:- Miscellaneous characters of Command & Conquer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources, which cannot be found. Thus, this article fails our general notability guideline. Past AFD stated that sources existed and to give this article time, but in due time the article has not found sources, giving weight to my finding that the only coverage of this topic is insignificant, or in inappropriate/unreliable/non-independent sources. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- This one has me confused, because if a past discussion already closed as keep, I do not see how someone can start a second discussion? --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)