Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Crimefighter


 * 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 Delete. The article hasn't has any sources added over the entire cycle of the AFD, and therefore the arguments for delete have more voice and are more relevantly based in policy. Keep votes were not near as strong as the delete comments. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 15:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Captain Crimefighter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping  06:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  merge adequately     the  information is verifiable,   being based as it should be on the fiction itself, & is therefore not Original Research.     DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable figure lacking real world notability.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 08:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that the topic fails to satisfy the requirements of the GNG. The article seems nothing more than a platform for a plot summary of the episode. A smerge to C.O.P.S. is possible, I guess; but what's the point of merging more unsourced content to an article that itself lacks any cited sources?

Dwanyewest (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Excessive plot summary and trivia on a thoroughly non-notable one-time character. Stand-alone articles are required to show independent notability, which this hasn't got, and as Dwanyewest notes there's no point in merging unsourced stuff into anything. There's nothing that can be done with this material, so it should be deleted. Reyk  YO!  18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better, too large to merge. It is a standard fictional character biography and can be referenced to the DVD material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources found to establish the notability of a one-episode character. Original research and excessive plot coverage violates what Wikipedia is not. The character is already adequately mentioned in the episode summary at the list of C.O.P.S. episodes. Sarilox (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, because the subject is verifiable through reliable sources that establish notability and is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, no legitimate reasons exists whatsoever why at worst we would not redirect with edit history intact to the episode page as we can see that she did indeed exist.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Other minor characters in the same series currently up for AfD are Articles for deletion/Mickey O'Malley, Articles for deletion/The Bugman and Gaylord, Articles for deletion/Addictem - people might wish to consider all four at the same time. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  02:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect, article consists entirely of unsourced WP:PLOT regurgitation. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD. No evidence of notability and no sources to support such a claim. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * keep per richard, in the alternative, merge. Okip  02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.   D r e a m Focus  07:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.