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.. Black Kite 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LongArm[edit]

(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) 21:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no indication that this character, who appeared in a cartoon that was only broadcast for 1 year, is notable. --Griseum (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists entirely of original research based on youtube videos. Are there more of these? They should have been nominated in a single AfD. Pcap ping 06:03, 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. How much need be marged needs to be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as character appeared on a memorable television show and as a toy. As nominator suggests and in keeping with WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, we would at worst merge and redirect this article as there is no need to trouble an admin with redlinking as there is nothing to protect the public from here. Indeed, if anything, it is at least relevant to someone. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 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]

Agree with previous nominees Delete 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 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.