Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mace and Nightshade

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mace and Nightshade[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no indication that these two characters, who appeared in a cartoon that was only broadcast for 1 year, are notable. --Griseum (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists entirely of original research based on youtube videos. Pcap ping 06:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. I suspect consensus could have been gotten to merge without having come here. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both fail general notability. JBsupreme (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources to assert notability WP:GNG and fails on the grounds WP:SOURCES.

Dwanyewest (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no reliable secondary sources which means we not have an article on it. Reyk _YO! 08:20, 23 February 2010 (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.