Search results

revision deletion (WP:REVDEL). See further WP:ATD. Shortcuts WP:ITEXISTS WP:ITEXIST WP:BUTITEXISTS Please study the introduction of this essay on making...

The previous AFD doesn't offer any strong reason to Keep other than WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June...

a form of ITEXISTS. My argument is much farther from that and therefore is never, will never be and still never be a variation of ITEXISTS. Have some...

two-year paramedic diplomas. "Keep" arguments in previous AfD consisted of WP:ITEXISTS. Article still has no reliable secondary sources - in fact, no sources...

sources, but none offer any extensive coverage or critical reception. An WP:ITEXISTS case. I suppose there is this "Nintendo Power 05/01/92 3.5 out of 5", but...

10:32, 30 August 2012‎ (UTC) WP:ITEXISTS, then?. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC) WP:ITEXISTS, Then huh? The Bushranger, you...

creation 11.5 years ago. The "external links" only demonstrate that WP:ITEXISTS. No evidence of significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03...

Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Delete ... we could say WP:ITEXISTS but it exists to serve no real purpose here. Not without references. --Whiteguru...

No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. WP:ITEXISTS is a valid keep argument if the nomination is based on a subject "not existing"...

seem to meet Wikipedia standards. The school it describes may pass "WP:ITEXISTS", but I have my doubts as to whether it meets "WP:N". Badger Drink (talk)...

very many Java/office suites that just does not pass WP:N Other then WP:ITEXISTS it has no notability Pmedema (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC) delete...

Delete I didn't find anything notable after a google search. Just that WP:ITEXISTS Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC) The above...

thousands of startup and little magazines across the world and other then WP:ITEXISTS it fails WP:N like many others. - Pmedema (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2010...

Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Delete Other then WP:ITEXISTS it completely fails WP:N - Pmedema (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)...

2020 (UTC) Delete article looks promotional or simply created because WP:ITEXISTS. Some coverage can be found but not sufficiently reliable sources.JohnmgKing...

any reviews that are WP:RS and nothing notable about it. Other then WP:ITEXISTS I don't see that this is encyclopedic. - Pmedema (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2016...

significance you would think there would be a least some sources online beyond WP:ITEXISTS. Mattg82 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...

(UTC) Delete. I can think of bad arguments for it being kept, like WP:ITEXISTS, there are plenty of WP:GOOGLEHITS, and WP:IKNOWIT. But like the nominator...

2011 (UTC) Delete - Google Translate of the "Cite" confirms that it WP:ITEXISTS, but I cannot see why it is WP:Notable. (FWIW, I dont speak Spanish so...

don't have any real coverage of the film outside of acknowledging that WP:ITEXISTS. However, there's no reason for it not to be used as a Redirect to Russell's...