Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Compass

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Compass

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

PRODed. Can't find a merge or redirect target for nn character. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the nomination does not provide a valid reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Nominator says character in non-notable, rationale given. Googling reveals more info about actual compasses than the character. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the nominator used Twinkle to replace a PROD placed by a different editor with this nomination. That's unusual – I've not seen this before. They only seemed to spend a minute on it before rushing off to the next one and it appears that they were working through an alphabetic list -- Chroma, Compass, Dragon King, &c. It's not clear why they messed with the PROD if they wanted the page deleted. And I didn't notice the "nn", at first. It appears that whatever is happening here is being rushed at high volume and that the due diligence of WP:BEFORE is not being done. Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like how you deprod any article that is prodded without even bothering to check the rationale, or in many cases, even give a proper edit summary? Seems like the same difference to me._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I enlarged and improved the article, and added refs. Article's in much better place now imho. Obscure but notable character. Ford MF (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Happy to amend my vote in light of the discovered reliable sources! Your Google-fu is stronger than mine.--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case it seems to have been brought up to par with references per WP:SAVE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:14, 3 September 2019 (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.