Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrannosaurus Reich

I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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 Major Bummer. Feel free to merge any usable content from page history. Tim Song (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus Reich

Tyrannosaurus Reich (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)

Non-notable fictional character - only makes a minor appearance in comic books, no significant coverage in reliable sources - simply fails WP:N. Claritas § 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Fictional DC comic book character has a significant "cult" following. Inniverse (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Azviz
• Merge - probably to Major Bummer, he seems to only have had one appearance in that comic and a blog posting doesn't really make for a very impressive claim for notability (although the character is a classic and deserves to make a return). (Emperor (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
• Delete- Extremely minor character with no assertion or demonstration of notability. There is just one source, an unreliable one, which only addresses the issue of a "cult following" (unconvincingly). Reyk _YO! 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note- I was obliged to remove half of the opening paragraph as it was a blatant copyvio. Reyk _YO! 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• What coverage does this thing have? [1] is mentioned in the article now, and Google news has another thing posted at shinny robot, it a blog like entry also. If it had a significant cult following, wouldn't more than 787 hits be returned from the general Google search [2]? Not that many people talking about it online it seems. Dream Focus 20:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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.