Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firestorm (robot)
- 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 The result of the debate was DELETE Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for those looking in the history of this, closing Admin used the wrong template, correcting mistake.Dustitalk to me 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firestorm (robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not sufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own. At best, material can be included in Robot Wars Fritzpoll (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non notable. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 20:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Tabercil (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability.--RyRy5 talk 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete same as everyone else, no notability. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to notability issues - the weak WP:POV assertion ("well known") keeps it out of WP:CSD#A7 - just. Pedro : Chat 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable. There should be a misc. speedy template for this. EuroSong talk 13:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the article was orginally tagged for speedy deletion, but that was contested. Thus the AFD. Tabercil (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2008 (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.