Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Meldrew

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. Clearly a notable TV character. @nominator: Please, familiarize yourself with WP:BEFORE. Thanks. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Meldrew

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

fails to establish notability. Many unsourced statements in the "Character" section and has no "reception" or "production" section. Koopatrev (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This fictional character is very well known in the United Kingdom, and he is often referred to in the media. The page should be improved rather than deleted. CodeTheorist (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. I was startled and saddened to see this misplaced nomination. Had I been a Victor Meldrew I should have mouthed a prolonged string of vituperative expletives... but since I'm just an English Wikipedian I have quickly added the start of a Reception section, and will observe that Meldrew is extremely well known and loved in the English media, to the extent that his name is part of our language, even a cliche for leader writers. The references I have provided are the tip of an iceberg; other Wikipedians will easily be able to add many better ones. But Meldrew's notability cannot be in doubt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep for egregious failure of WP:BEFORE on the nominator's part. The notability argument is trivial to refute and the others have no weight.
To prove notability, you need two reliable sources: the BBC here, The Telegraph here, and I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the Daily Mail coverage as well. As for the other arguments, we don't delete material for unsourced statements, and we don't delete material for lack of sections. These are reasons why you should improve the article, not reasons to bring it to AfD.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sorry about that. I probably didn't read that before nominating...

I don't believe it! Lugnuts (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2012 (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.