Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moosylvania


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Moosylvania

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  20:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep&mdash;but there are sources in the world, esp these:
 * these support the material in the article and establish its notability in my opinion. there are other sources as well, which you'll find, as i did, in the gbooks search.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It certainly has sources now... And they seem to attest to its real life impact fairly well for the article length. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I do not believe that the topic of the article meets the general notability guideline, and, in my opinion, it can only be an indiscriminate collection of information since it has no reception or significance in the real-world. The sources provided are not objective evidence of notability since they are either trivial mentions, accounts of its creation and anecdotes from primary sources or tertiary sources, but none provides analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional island to presume that it is notable beyond the plot of the series. Jfgslo (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of the same potential RS sources provided in the Pottsylvania AfD discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep due to reliable sources presented above. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough sources presented.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.