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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user. Reason given on talk page is: "Notability of this fictional character is not established due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject." I have no opinion. jcgoble3 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Using the Google News link above Salon has an article on how the character's introduction has affected the long-running show. There's also a Seattle PI article and a few others I'm not going to take the time to examine. These sources should clearly be added to the article to give real-world context, which clearly exists. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Jclemens. But I hope they get rid of the character. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:03, 15 January 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.