Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Wexler

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) 15:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wexler

(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) 23:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I glanced through the Google News results for the character (which can be found here), and several articles appear to be focused on the character. There may not be "real-world information" in the article, but it appears that the character has some notability by Wikipedia standards. The following are some sources from Google Books on the character (1 2 3). I would argue that these sources would be enough to keep the article. It definitely requires improvement, but I do not see deletion as a valid answer in this case. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft it, then. It needs some serious plot trimming and some serious real-world information added. There should be more real-world information than there is in-universe plot. -- Alex^TW 02:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rather poor argument for deletion in my opinion. I would understand if you are proposing deletion based on the grounds that the above sources may not be enough to prove notability for a separate article (and even though it would be best to argue for a merge to the List of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul characters). However, deletion should not be a substitute for clean-up. Deletion arguments should primarily focus on whether or not the topic is notable (i.e. whether or not it was covered by third-party, reliable sources). is work to improve the article, and it is not a strong argument for deletion. I vote keep or redirect to the List of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul characters if the above sources are not enough to satisfy notability standards. A subsection on the character is already present in that article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last message in this AfD. I just wanted to my vote clear. I am arguing that this article should either be kept or redirected given there is coverage of this particular character in third-party, reliable sources to warrant a space on Wikipedia (whether as a separate article or a part of the list of series character). My argument is based on Wikipedia:Notability. On the other hand, your argument for deletion is that the article requires clean-up and expansion, and you do not even touch on the issue of notability. Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 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) 08:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

His importance in Breaking Bad was a reason to keep the article and he wasn't the titular character in that show. Yes both articles for Kim Wexler and Chuck McGill are lacking content, but both are notable, and should be kept, based on notability. Deletion is not a valid answer, so my decision for both articles is keep. The Optimistic One (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should correct myself: That was the titular character of Better Call Saul. Since they are lacking content, they should be moved to the draft space until such a time that they are more presentable. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. I'm pretty sure that everything in those articles has been pulled from episode plot summaries - no unique content exists in either of them. -- Alex^TW 09:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vanity Fair, Screen Rant, and Forbes 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) 00:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 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]
Keep: Even if against policies and guidelines and because other stuff does exist. Wait! don't tell me I can't argue this. It is suppose to be avoided at AFD's but is brought up so many times it can't be counted. This means that when policies and guidelines are ignored by enough people we should leave it alone or get it brought to a conclusion. We should not have fictional biographical articles unless presented as such like Kim Wexler (fictional character) but we do, then splash a real world actor or actress images on the "fake biography" to mix real world and in-universe elements. Every single one of these articles should have a biograpy template added to the page but I don't know if any do. Examples are too many to list but include Mike Ehrmantraut, J. R. Ewing and many, many more. This also means that by proxy we have allowed fake biographies to exist either by WP:IAR, Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, or the unlisted WP:Becasue we like it. It does not matter as consensus has determined that fake biographies with real world names are acceptable. If this has been allowed by more local (project) consensus then it is either accepted by silence or just hasn't received attention. None of this matters as this is being allowed so we should just get over it. A head count will often suffice for consensus even if there are clear policy violations so that is another policy that is ignored. Anyway, I like it but think if the community wants it (fictional character) should be added or at a point consensus will change against real world people added to fake biographies. Just a thought. Otr500 (talk) 07:51, 5 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.