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The result was withdrawn. --Coredesat 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Honeybun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I PRODded this earlier, but the PROD was contested. I am not exactly convinced this character is notable. Despite the fact that it was on a long-running television program, the program was a local one and not notable on a large scale. Coredesat 00:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (I contested the prod) - character and programme are synonymous. Programme was regional rather than "local" - covering pretty much the whole of the South West peninsula of Britain. The cancellation of the programme did receive extensive coverage in other media, tho' as it was before the internet it will be hard to google-verify. I am linking this discussion from the Cornwall Wikiproject so that editors with knowledge of the region can contribute. DuncanHill 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Running for 30-odd years, this puppet apparently achieved a longevity in the world of television puppetry second only to "Sooty". --DAJF 01:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Gus Honeybun's Magic Birthdays. The show may have enough notability. Clarityfiend 02:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is more notable and well-known in the UK than Google hits might suggest. Crazysuit 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just saw this was prodded with the reason "no apparent assertion of notability but fictional characters aren't speediable". Isn't appearing on TV for more than 30 years an "assertion of notability"? Crazysuit 03:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep for regional notability. However, the show itself was but continuity filler, IIRC, and so not notable per se. Eddie.willers 03:28, 12 November 2007 (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.