Deletion of Maria Jackson

Comment: This appears to have been stated entirely to make a .  Looking through his contributions, he has started articles on some thing to do with the wombles (and been told that those are not notable) - and looking though the history of his (blanked) talk page reveals that an unknown IP has concerms that he is a sock puppet.  Given that he is clearly overemphasising wikipedia rules I think these should be looked at.  Just look at his reply on WT:WHO to the note that this had started - and his immediet jump to put a rather silly template http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luke_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=236445618 here and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maria_Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=236445675 here. Special:Contributions/86.131.239.18|86.131.239.18
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: real-world information is added to justify a separate article per  and #PLOT. Rani Chandra (The Sarah Jane Adventures) (a character from the same show) implies that ''some'' sources exist for a half-decent article, but I am not sure it's a enough to make it full-decent and avoid a merger forever. &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:NOT)

Comment: I do not believe the requirements for RS information "solely or primarily" about a fictional character matches consensus. This seems a  nomination designed to take advantage of the deletionists' blocking 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:FICT)