Deletion of Weasels in fiction

Comment: The topic is notable as demonstrated by the sources.  The other article is irrelevant per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: I see no notable references to the concept in general - finding references to examples of individual fictional weasels and constructing a general article from those is |Synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Since neither source is specifically about weasels in fiction this looks like a violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: The two refs are easily dealt with in appropriate articles. Delete as not |notable and per . Also  per Spartaz
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:NOT||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: topic really hasn't received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet . Colonel Warden has a history of creating articles in order to advance his line of argument in AFD debates - in this case the AFD for List of fictional weasels - and while this in itself is not a reason to delete, when compounded with the complete lack of significant coverage of the topic and  issues, this is a clear candidate for deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SYN)

Comment: Apparently a bad-faith, |pointy creation by Warden, which is about par for the course.   lists like this are simply not encyclopedic material, like the "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" example from .  seems the way to go for this one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:SALAT||WP:SYNTH)