Deletion of Les Nessman

Comment: Unreferenced and just a  recount
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT)

Comment: What, is this a joke nomination?  Major character that's still a household name 30 years later, on the order of Cliff Huxtable or Andy Griffith.  And references are sufficient to pass the notability guidelines.  And please read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: major and sourcable character in a notable series, who has received coverage in reliable sources http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Les+Nessman%22%2C+WKRPhttp://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=%22Les+Nessman%22%2C+WKRP&btnG=Search+Books . No need to redirect, when the article |can be trimmed some and improved. Surmountable issues are not a cause for deletion just because someone ELSE has not yet done the required work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: or stubbify. Almost completely |unsourced attempt at |literary criticism; only one sentence is sourced from a secondary source. While the topic might be notable, it's better to rewrite the article from scratch, based on |secondary sources, rather than keep some random Wikipedian's #ESSAY|essay around forever in the hope it is brought up to standards. I'm not convinced the topic passes  based on that single source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:SECONDARY||WP:NOT||WP:GNG)