Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck McGill

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) Szzuk (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck McGill

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

Entirely plot, no real-world information. -- Alex^TW 13:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no demonstation of notability beyond the narrow view of the show itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article for the character Saul Goodman was nominated for deletion a few years ago because of a lack of content, and the result was Speedy keep, not because of the content, because the character is significantly important to both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. The Optimistic One (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the titular character. This is not. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 08:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The !vote makes no sense, because no fictional element has notability beyond it's fictional setting. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reason given on Kim Wexler's discussion. The Optimistic One (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vanity Fair, Hollywood Reporter, and Variety articles cover the character in depth. WP:BEFORE failure, AFD is not cleanup, etc. Oh, and per WP:ATD-M, a merger to the character list is a more policy-based outcome if this article were to not exist as a standalone. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens, as in the Kim Wexler discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jclemens has provided ample evidence of notabilityKeineMelon (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC). KeineMelon (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2018 (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.