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. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon Suggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This literary character doesn't seem to have received any attention outside the works of Kemelman. Not notable at all. Prod contested on talk page, but reason given there to retain the article not convincing. Fram (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Adequately covered in Harry Kemelman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs) 08:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Very poorly sourced article about a minor fictional character. Reyk _YO! 04:09, 3 November 2014 (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.