Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbo Tu-Tone

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 merge, but yet again unsourced, no notability asserted, anyone !voting Keep here really needs to read our policies Black Kite 01:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Tu-Tone

(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) 21:06, 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 05:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge adequately the information is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Significant coverage in reliable sources not provided or found to establish notability. Original research and plot violates what Wikipedia is not. Sarilox (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as if it has not become clear, I am only defending those that actually show up in both the show and as toys, i.e. those that actually do have multiple means of notability, i.e. relevance to those who study both televsion and toys alike. We know from reliable sources that this character is notabile and passes what Wikipedia is. Following the nominator's own suggestion and in-line with WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, no reason exists for not at worst redirecting with edit history intact as a matter of consideration of our fellow editors and readers who do see worth in studying characters with appearances as toys and in TV shows. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:10, 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 07:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to C.O.P.S.. Hate to say it, but there is no information in this article that is backed by reliable sources. I appreciate the work that has gone into this and other similar articles, but I can't find the sources to justify an article on this character. We do have the fiction itself, both the show and the comic series, but that isn't sufficient - though it does serve to fill a list of major characters on the show's article, which is what should probably happen. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 19:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. There will be commentary out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 26 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.