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. to C.O.P.S._(animated_TV_series)#CROOKS as a plausible search term. Any verifiable content can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berserko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(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) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 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. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there is nothing to merge as the article is completely unsourced and violates our NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH policy. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is a plot-only description violating what Wikipedia is not. No reliable sources found to establish the notability of the character deserving its own article. Sarilox (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and continue to improve or merge and redirect with edit history intact as it is consistent with what Wikipedia is. We can verify that the subject is not a hoax per Google. Thus, per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, no policy based reason exists for not at worst redirecting with edit history intact as it is obviously a valid search term for somebody and as we do have places to redirect to. Because it comes from a show that did spawn action figures and thus is relevant to students of cartoon and toy history, it has potential for further use in some manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:48, 22 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.