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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grubble (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)

Unremarkable character, where it is a character might also not be notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 2 and a half line article and see no assertion of notability and from gsearches on the creators ([1][2], they don't appear to be notable either. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment AfD'ed three minutes after initial creation? While I agree that there's not much here worth keeping... really? That seems like overly aggressive new page patrolling to me. NPP is for stopping immediate harm, and probably NN topics like this are pretty low on the spectrum of what I'd consider detrimental to Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't even notice the creation date myself. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I could have PRODed or CSD'd it right away, but I wanted to see the consensus... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:28, 25 March 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.