Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snotling (2nd nomination)
Same as I suggested last time.  The last AfD has an exhaustive overview of the possible sources and their relationship to the subject (result: nil).  The previous close resulted from vociferous and repeated opposition to deletion that largely amounted to  or "it's notable".  The article doesn't cite independent sources covering the subject and (just like the rest of the GW sub-articles), few are likely to exist.  The article ''was'' redirected after the no consensus close but that redirect was reverted citing .  Since then, no further sources have been added and no improvements made.  IF someone feels this is a likely search term, they can make a redirect after deletion, but this article doesn't meet wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion
— User:Protonk, 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IAR (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)