Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novelty vs. predictability: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:13, 1 December 2010

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ONESOURCE applies here, and there's no independent, significant source to establish notability. — Timneu22 · talk 19:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - was just about to Afd it myself. ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though more sources were added, theres no categories to merge this to, if this was notable there would be more people posting in this afd, there would actually be votes to keep this article. Longevitydude (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 20:10, 1 December 2010 edit Ukexpat (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 115,146 edits →‎Novelty vs. predictability: Delete ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:13, 1 December 2010 edit undo Longevitydude (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 658 edits see, im not bias, not everything timneu22 does is wrong Next edit →
Line 7:		Line 7:

	* '''Delete''' per nomination - was just about to Afd it myself. [[User:Ukexpat\|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat\|talk]]) 20:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)		* '''Delete''' per nomination - was just about to Afd it myself. [[User:Ukexpat\|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat\|talk]]) 20:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
			* '''Delete''' though more sources were added, theres no categories to merge this to, if this was notable there would be more people posting in this afd, there would actually be votes to keep this article. [[User:Longevitydude\|Longevitydude]] ([[User talk:Longevitydude\|talk]]) 20:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)