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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Weak consensus to merge once the injunction is lifted. Sandstein (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom injunction has been lifted. I have redirected per above interpretation of consensus. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongarm (Masters of the Universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and of original research. Additionally, it has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Notability is especially doubtful as this character appeared in only a single episode. Google returns only non-reliable fansites and the like and unrelated hits which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance outside of original research or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of minor Masters of the Universe characters (or similar), along with others such as Batros, Fang Man and Icer. Plenty of other articles could probably be included as well, depending on where you want to draw the line. PC78 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per PC78, or even a weak delete. This wasn't a recurring character - Strongarm only appeared in a single episode, and doesn't even appear to have , so notability is extremely limited. The best description I can find of this character outside Wikipedia ([1]) refers to him as "obscure and unusual". Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and is written from such a heavy in universe perspective as to have no real-world content. I don't think the injuction template placed on this AfD applies, as this article fails WP Guidelines in any case. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, unfortunately, no exception made in the injunction for clear cases. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The injunction applies. This article is about a television character. The article cannot be deleted while the injunction is in effect. --Pixelface (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Apart from being a violation of the injunction, the nominator doesn't seem to have done due diligence per WP:GD. The nomination states This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis but, if one actually reads it, one finds that about half the article is such context/analysis which ties the fate of the character to the real-world availability of corresponding merchandise. The falsehood indicates that this is a bad-faith nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... which only amounts to 200 words, all of which is pure speculation based on the fact that Mattel didn't produce a Strongarm action figure. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, the AFD was created two minutes after the injunction was in place. It unlikely anyone who wasn't watching that page was aware of it. It's ridiculous to claim that my nomination was bad faith on those grounds.
    • I made no claim of bad faith on those grounds. My claim of bad faith is that you made a cookie-cutter nomination without having made a proper effort to study what you want to destroy. Your claim of OR now seems similar - jumping to a conclusion without due diligence. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Inserting your comments inside my comments makes it unnecessarily difficult to follow the conversation. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire first paragraph of the Profile section is plot summary. The second is OR. The nom is my typical wording for fictional AFDs and I simply forgot to reword it for this specific article. I've done that now. Cheers, Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into something like List of minor Masters of the Universe characters along with other one-shot characters. Also, the speculation about the character serving as a prototype for Fisto is original research and should be removed. *** Crotalus *** 04:52, 17 February 2008 (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.