Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundown (C.O.P.S.)

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 merge to C.O.P.S.. Might as well be merged, no sources, no notability asserted (etc) Black Kite 01:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sundown (C.O.P.S.)

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 05:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not OR. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources found or provided to establish notability. Article is filled with original research and plot violating what Wikipedia is not. Sarilox (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as yet again reliable sources establish notability for this article that is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Characters from mainstream shows who also got toys are relevant to those who study the history of cartoon and toys alike and regardless of what any of us personally like or dislike, we need to be considerate to our colleagues per Wikipedia:Editors matter. Thus, as the nominator suggest, even in the worst case scenario we would merge per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVEas there is no dire need to redlink. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. The only source is the fiction, which works to show that the character exists, but doesn't do much to show that the character is notable enough for its own article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 18:56, 25 February 2010 (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.