Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Rainbow

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. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Rainbow

Unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio; was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin which closed wo/prejudice to opening more controlled AFD's. There are 140 or so others; a pox on the 'pedia; delete. Jack Merridew 11:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 11:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character appeared in a notable series for four years. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and/or merge. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Nash, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Black (Home and Away), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Davenport etc., the character can be treated to the extent necessary in the parent article or an article collecting thumbnail sketches of its characters. Footnote 9 of WP:FAILN seems roughly on-point: "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'" - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fictional character which is not notable independent of the actors or show itself. I'm okay with the name being redirected to the show article or an appropriate list but I think the article should be deleted. Googling "Joey Rainbow" and "Home and Away" gets only 54 distinct (of 1760 total) ghits, most of which are to forums and fan pages. [1] I don't think Google is solely an indicator of notability but for an award winning and popular TV show that is currently airing, I would expect to see much more if this were a notable character. Due to the lack of reliable sources about this character, the article is also unverified and unverifiable and not maintainable. Sarah 02:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The low ghit rating may simply reflect the pre-Internet timing of the character. He was used in an Australian Government advertising campaign on mental health, but I have absolutely no idea where one would find that info or verify it (I have tried). I did find three references to the character in a psychiatry journal online and two related publications, in an article on psychiatry in the media ([2], [3], [4]). However, how one would coalesce this single issue (which I understand relates only to a single storyline near the end of this character's onscreen life) into an article which meets Wiki policies I'm unsure of - not one of the other details of his onscreen life is verifiable from a reliable source (he doesn't even appear on the show's website) and if this was a biography of a real person, it'd be a case of BLP1E. Orderinchaos 03:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non commital depending on whether Orderinchaos's findings pan out. I'll try to remember to revist later Matthewedwards : Chat 16:47, 11 July 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.