Deletion of Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess

Comment: per  and .  No evidence whatsoever that this fictional character has "''received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VERIFY||WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm aware of , but I'm still amazed why this particular character has been singled out. As has been said previously, this is not only a major character, but the '''main character''' in a show that has been established as notable. Not nearly all of the show's other characters have their own articles, but some do, and I haven't seen anyone question their notability. From another, perhaps more important, perspective, I can mention Transformers. I am a Transformers fan but not a C.O.P.S. fan. Pretty much every Transformers character ever has its own Wikipedia article. Some of them are notable on their own, but many exist simply because they're about a toy that had a cartoon character made of it. For example, the Technobots and Terrorcons have, to my recollection, appeared in less than a dozen of the Transformers cartoon's almost one hundred episodes. Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, on the contrast, has appeared in pretty much every episode ever of C.O.P.S
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Major/main character in a notable series is a suitable spin out article. As usual a route of less confrontational and thoughtful discussion should have efore|preceded this but we're here now. There is a reasonable point that our readers may benefit from a reorganization where instead of one main and multiple individual character articles that a main article plus several supplemental articles combining many of the major characters and likewise for the minor characters. This would also be a useful suggestion for writing about fictional series if we are doling out suggestions for other editors
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: yet another article about a character from a minor TV show that has absolutely no |sources to back it up. Google News yields nothing, Google Books one that mentions the character in passing- not enough to justify this big huge article. It's almost entirely |original research. The tone of the article is also excessively flowery and, while for proper articles this is an issue that can be fixed, here it cannot be done because there are no sources to enable balanced coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: to C.O.P.S. since I do not see any worthwhile secondary sources being provided and a personal research attempt did not turn up much of use for a stand-alone article.  For example, http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/231893/8_tv_cartoons_they_should_make_into_movies.html this is still series-centric, not character-centric.  The TV series article is very sparse, so  does not apply here; merging preserves edit history and consolidates all ''C.O.P.S'' information in one place
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)

Comment: in some capacity per  and , i.e. ''no'' valid reason exists as to there being any pressing need to delete the edit history and why we would not at worst redirect with edit history intact to .  As even the nominator and bolded delete above suggest, we have merge and
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: and then use the article talk page to discuss a possible merge and redirect.  Article subject is not a minor character, but is rather a major character in a notable series and has real-world notability through being subject of a notable toyline. Specially NOW that the article has been sourced since nomination, issues with article length should be handled through |regular editing and not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: Most of the keep !votes here ignore policy. Nothing supports the proposition that major characters from notable cartoone are somehow notable. Sounds like  to me. Like every article, there must be significant coverage in reliable sources. I challenge anyone to reasonably argue that the bar of ''significant'' has been met here. In my view, policy requires deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)