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 -Djsasso (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This character does not establish notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary content. TTN (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fancruft. VG ☎ 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Move to an article on the film, since we don't have one . Otherwise I'd say merge and redirect,. If we are going to have only one article, & I do not see that we need more, it should be on the film. DGG (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the film isn't notable enough to have an article, then its characters certainly aren't either. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Stifle's hit it on the head here - an obscure 1970s cartoon character most certainly isn't notable enough. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:51, 7 October 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.