Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bugman and Gaylord


 * 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 Redirect. Any content that can be sourced can be merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bugman and Gaylord

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

All other minor characters in the C.O.P.S. series who have their own articles are currently up for AfD - Articles for deletion/Captain Crimefighter, Articles for deletion/Addictem, Articles for deletion/Mickey O'Malley. As this article looks pretty much identical to the others, I think this should be considered along with them for consistency. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Excessive plot summary and trivia that does not show any reliable third-party sources. It's also mostly original research based upon some youtube videos. Reyk  YO!  18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for all listed. Agree 100% with Reyk. Note: There may be more minor C.O.P.S. characters out there; I had nominated one (Johnny Yuma) for AfD prior. Jrh7925 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There is a lack of reliable third person information regarding this character to justify notability Dwanyewest (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Trim and Merge into a character list. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge.-- a proper merge, not just a character list  . Whether it should be a separate article is less important, but in practice keeping a separate article is a better protection against loss of proper content. (that does not mean that all the present material should be kept, whether merged or separate--I think it and the others like it are considerably too detailed.)    DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no doorstop to removal of details; the whole article is original research and pure WP:PLOT regurgitation. Why are these two characters given together? Abductive  (reasoning) 08:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE as article should either be improved further or merged and redirected to C.O.P.S., which would benefit from at least the lead sentence of this article. Because we WP:AGF, it is clearly not a hoax and certainly not libelous.  There is nothing to protect the public from here.  By contrast, we actually improve another article and make searching convenient for our readers who come here interested in these characters by allowing for a path to the other article.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect per a nobody. Okip  02:39, 24 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)
 * Delete There's no reliable third person information and fails notability criteria. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:28, 24 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 all characters from this same series, since all of the articles are quite full and well done.   D r e a m Focus  07:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 *   — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * keep or merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. There will be commentary out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 26 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.