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[edit]

Kim Wexler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely plot, no real-world information. -- AlexTW 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]
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. -- AlexTW 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]
That was the titular character. This is not. Cheers. -- AlexTW 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. -- AlexTW 09:04, 31 March 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.
More