Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toadfish Rebecchi

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 keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toadfish Rebecchi

utterly non-notable, unsourced 'article' about a fictional soap opera character; it does have just lots and lots of plot summary. delete. cheers, Jack Merridew 06:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 06:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [1][2][3][4] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might add those to the actor's article ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would this article belong in the actor's article. It nvere mentions the actor, the article is (in part) specifically about the character?

Keep There are not a lot of soap opera character articles that would be worth keeping but (sadly) this character is one of them. The subject is a pop-culture figure in at least two nations. The article (sneer quotes in AfD nominations are not particularly helpful BTW) is not much chop at the moment but given the subject matter a reasonable stub could be created rather quickly. I support the general clean-up of character articles on Neighbours and Home and Away that appears to be taking place at present but this article, at least is one of the rare exceptions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with those above, this character does seem notable enough to justify a wikipedia article. Dream Focus 06:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I think it would be a mammoth task going through old TV week magazines to source this, I believe the character is notable enough. I never had a subscription, so good luck with it (whomever cites it). Jwoodger (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2009 (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.