The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for a month and a half with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (which is Durova). Though I'm closing "keep", I have no problem with a speedy renomination if the issues raised by the "weak keep" !voters are not addressed. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tricephalous

[edit]

Keep: It appears that the page of this Deviant Mutate is pended for deletion. I say it should stay and be expanded in our own words. Besides, Tricephalous is going to appear in "The Super Hero Squad Show. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete with comment Article creator blanked PROD and replaced it with an AFD template, but without copying the prod rationale. "Minimal content, no third party sources or demonstration of notability outside fictional universe." Article creator has since entered one abbreviated reference which I was unable to parse. No objection to keeping the article if it improves. Durova³¹¹ 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 18:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article contains resourceful information, the main issue is the article references too many copyrighted sources (i.e. Comic books) which can not be verified in a encyclopedic fashion. Without valid third party resources to cite the article lacks any true content. If additional external open sources for the information contained can be cited, the article would be acceptable. Aramova (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, for reasons given by Aramova. Has two external links, but they are not third party references, and thus are primary source, which doesn't add to verifiability of notability of article's subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.