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. Xclamation point 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sellbot VP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 14:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Toontown Online — (edit conflict) Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor is it a game guide. However, a viable search term. MuZemike (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No real content edits since December last year and little means by which to establish just how this character is of any note. treelo _radda 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the main article, Toontown Online, so it explains that this is the principle antagonist for one of the four main tasks in the game. There is no additional content here, so there's nothing to merge. It might be better to change the title to "Selbot", or to add a redirect for that as well. DGG (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cogs. Nifboy (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Nifboy. WP:FICT is disputed, but I can't see that any compromise could include every "major antagonist" in any fictional work. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a big fan of this repetitive nomination rationale, but it's true in this case. JuJube (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2008 (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.