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 speedy keep‎. Per WP:CSK #1, absence of delete rationale. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Cheetah[edit]

Chester Cheetah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 06:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article's sources demonstrate notability, and the nominator has not provided any rationale for deletion. Toughpigs (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep No valid deletion rationale. Oblivy (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Comics and animation, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite of the nominator not showing any rationale for deletion, I do see some rationales why it is because first; seems to not have a reception section, second; most of the sources are just information and unreliable sources which have nothing to do with the WP:SIGCOV however, there is some reliable and reasonable sources like 7, 11, and 16. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2024 (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.