Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extendar


 * 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 List of Masters of the Universe characters. Should be a delete because there's no sourcing, but we've got an easy merge target, so... Black Kite 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Extendar

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:05, 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  06:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletar. Non-notable characater, lacks real-world notability and coverage from reliable third party sources.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge  adequately.  An examination of the article proposed to merge to is the sort of merge that gives insufficient information, and is not adequate. It would be better to keep that to lose information in this fashion--information that is verifiable,   being based as it should be on the fiction itself.    DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, almost WP:PERNOM, as following WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, when a merge and redirect location exists we do that instead of redlinking. We can plain see that this notable character is something we can actually hold in the real world.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters to avoid a wedwink.  Abductive  (reasoning) 08:08, 23 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.