The article must be built from information found in third-party sources (newspapers, magazines) that are independent of the subject of the article. Those sources must be referenced in-line with the text they support. No un-referenced material is allowed.

This is a tough one. Personally, I'd like to see this accepted since the movie was so good, but the problem here is that you need to show how the character is independently notable from the film. The sources here don't establish that and some of them are completely unusable. I'll go over the sources individually, but ultimately what you need here are things other than movie reviews or articles that only briefly mention the character. You need things that discuss the character in-depth like this book that discusses Hermione Granger. The thing to remember is that character do not inherit notability from their film being notable. ( WP:NOTINHERITED)

1. IMDb is not usable as a reliable source at all and cannot establish notability. You can sometimes use it as a place to pull basic info from, but at best all this does is show that the film and character exist - which isn't in doubt. At best this is a database, at worst it's unreliable since IMDb can be somewhat easily edited by anyone with an account.
2. This news story is OK. However it really only serves to talk about the film and doesn't really go into depth about the character, so at most this could be a trivial source for the character's notability. At best this is a trivial source.
3. Wikis will never be used as a RS on Wikipedia since they are seen as self-published sources. There might be some rare, rare exceptions, but that would only be for wikis that are put out by a very reliable institution and no one can edit them except for the institution itself, who oversees any changes or additions. Anything that can be edited by the general public will not be seen as a RS.
4. TV Tropes is not seen as a RS on Wikipedia and it's not even something that we can link to in the articles at all - although I do personally love the site. The reason for this is that the site can be edited by anyone with an account and the content is often edited to be humorous and contains original research.
5. At best this site is a database listing that shows that the character appears in parks. Being a park mascot in and of itself won't give notability since it's expected that Disney will have them as mascots in their parks.
6. Reviews for the film (including the Rotten Tomatoes reviews) will not establish notability for the character, as they're about the film. If there was a review that was almost solely about the character or put a lot of emphasis on him, then that could work - but even then it could be argued that the coverage is primarily about the film since it's reviewing the movie.
7. Animation Source looks to be a database source at best - although I'll note that the bottom of the page says that the site is maintained by fans, which would make it a self-published source.
8. Inside the Magic looks to be a notification that the mascots will be in the park - again, this by itself does not give notability. If the article went into more depth about the mascot then it could potentially be usable, but it's mostly just a routine announcement at best.