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 delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cra-man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable fictional character. Article admits its own unverifiability: "Cannot be sourced as is work in progress". Was prodded, prod removed by author. Huon (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability demonstrated, and the page strongly implies that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to do so even if one tried. The best one could manage would probably run roughshod over WP:CRYSTAL. - Vianello (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection I think this should be kept as it is an amateur comic writers work and should not be discounted just for that reason. Krissyt (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that is a valid reason to delete. JuJube (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborate? Krissyt (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. That is not the reason it is being nominated for deletion regardless. Please read over the reasons for the nomination and the affirmative comments. The article does not satisfy notability or verifiability. Amateur creations that achieve these things are entirely acceptable. This has failed to do so. - Vianello (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Point taken but can you please tell me or assist me on how i could acheive verifiability when i am only an amateur on here and in the comic world. Krissyt (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. Sure. The main outlet is to demonstrate whether or not reliable outside sources have taken note of the subject of the article. If something's been covered by a prominent news agency, for example, it's on the fast track to notability. I know it's not quite the same thing, but the notability criteria for books would be a good thing to look at, as well as the pages on notability and verifiability (linked in my previous post). If you have other questions, please direct them to my talk page. - Vianello (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the article: "Cannot be sourced as is work in progress". Huh. Well, at least they're upfront about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no notability established, seems to be the author's own fanfic character. JIP | Talk 15:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources. The article's self-admission to that effect means it is either WP:COI or WP:CRYSTAL, or possibly both. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per JIP and nom, no notability established. — paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article lacks notability by not having reliable sources to verify the content and as such, is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥ Whipp 15:52, 25 June 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.