Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moezilla

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 redirect to moe anthropomorphism. If anyone wants to merge some content in they know where to find it. Wizardman 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moezilla

Not notable, one of thousands of fan created characters within Moe anthropomorphism. No reason to even merge it, nothing notable about it. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We already have an article on this, and most of the info is redundant. Dwilso 07:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Moe anthropomorphism Does not seem to have notability on its own, although I cannot find any info on the personification of Mozilla products in the main article, so I suggest merging the information into the main article. Atyndall93 | talk 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She's cute, but Merge to Moe anthropomorphism. Not notable enough for her own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compress and merge with either Moe anthropomorphism or OS-tan. Yeah, I know, strictly speaking applications and not operating systems, but it still looks like a possible target. As examples of moe anthropomorphism, even as a class, these don't seem to have acheived independent notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moe anthropomorphism or just delete; not notable. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Moe antropomorphism. This is not notable on its own.-- danntm ^T _C 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Moe anthropomorphism. I don't really see a problem with the article as is, but it seems like it would fit well in the Moe anthropomorphism article. Moezilla doesn't have to be notable to merge, per WP:NNC. --Pixelface (talk) 14:58, 7 May 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.