Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Romano (ER)

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 no consensus. Opinion is divided on the notability of the subject. There have been no further comments in the last six days and i don't think that a further relist will gain a clear consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Romano (ER)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fictional character, usual routine coverage, but no real in-depth coverage to show real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the character is mentioned in reliable secondary sources, including in scholar books. --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At worst, this should be restored as a redirect - I created the redirect but it was made an article by 82.208.209.97. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was an entry at List of secondary doctors in ER, but I believe that Romano is notable enough to sustain his own article. However, I agree with you that redirecting/merging into the aforementioned list is preferred over deleting. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lord Opeth: "mentions" are not enough. There needs to be significant coverage. Can you list sources that push it above WP:GNG? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least two of the references in the article are about the character's death. I guess I misused the term "mentioned". --LoЯd ۞pεth 13:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - and all are simply brief mentions, or short blurbs. Not the in-depth coverage needed to warrant real world-notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do believe the article needs improvement, not deletion. Los Angeles Times devoted an article on the character's death, and TV Guide conducted an interview with the actor to discuss the matter. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:41, 27 June 2019 (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.