Deletion of Al Haskey

Comment: This clearly passes ... Just because an article has little sourcing does not mean that it isn't notable. Al Haskey is a regular on a nationwide soap opera watched regularly by millions of viewers daily. There are plenty of independent and reliable sources out there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Really? The PROD was removed as an editor began work to improve and source the article, and this AfD was opened eight minutes later. You haven't given the editor or the article a chance at all, and it comes across as |pointy. I'd recommend merging to a relevant character list if nothing can be done, but the character is a regular on a BBC daytime soap, with a few award wins and nominations that are now mentioned & sourced within the article. A quick Google search is promising https://www.google.co.uk/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQQII4EOVj2WL3s4YQD63xzkGL2Mg%3A1576794618307&source=hp&ei=-vn7XYu5EOGtgwfyxbroBw&q=doctors+al+haskey&oq=al+heske&gs_l=psy-ab.3.1.0i22i10i30l2.215.2702..4398...1.0..0.675.3960.0j1j0j1j0j6......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0j0i10j0i22i30.hotrzWRoxWA source wise, though to those who are unfamiliar with the subject area, it might not look like it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The impressive expansions and improvements by {{U|Raintheone}} in recent days with cited |reliable sources  establish notability to the point that this article should be kept. (For what it's worth, I believe {{U|TTN}} acted in |good faith with the PROD and subsequent AFD; if TTN had known or had been told there were significant improvements ongoing and did the AFD anyway, that would be one thing, but I don't think that was the case here or that there was any malicious intent
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:AGF)