Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Nate on a Roll

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 merge to Big Nate. causa sui (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Nate on a Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. The only reference used is a

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to existing Big Nate article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge No indication of notability. No references. (just mentioned the big nate web site as a "source". The content is a plot summary, not an article about the book. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Big Nate, save history just in case anything useful can be extracted from it someday.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Discussion on AfD guidelines for articles containing content unlikely to be merged. Trevj (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2011 (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.