Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rooby Foo

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rooby Foo

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

Not much info found on Google, no references on the article, seems non-notable according to the WP:FICTION guidelines. Calaka (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD - no appreciable context. --EEMIV (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While, I do not find "non-notable" compelling, especially as WP:FICTION is NOT a guideline, but rather a disputed attempt at a guideline (note the big question mark on top of it that says: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'."), other compelling reasons to delete do exist and these stem from WP:V and WP:RS. When I typed in "Rooby Foo" on Google, I get seven results. The only two that are on topic are the Wikipedia article and this discussion of it. The others focus on a restaurant of the same name, but even that restaurant only seems to have webforum style comments, i.e. no professional reviews from which we can base a reasonable article and certainly no hits on Google News of reviews or news worthy incidents having occured there. So, not only are we currently unable to write and source an article on the fictional character we arguably cannot do so for the restaurant either and I am unable to find any other options for this content per WP:PRESERVE. In the off-chance someone does discover sources, I at least fixed the format of the lead. Also, the alleged creator of this fictional character is currently redlinked as well: Nathan Chinnick and as I was unable to locate any sources anywhere tying him to the character, it is possible that this article could be a WP:HOAX? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More likely wishful thinking by someone who hopes to get published someday than an actual hoax. No sources indicating anything about the character or author. No sign of ever being published. Edward321 (talk) 00:48, 22 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.