Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Caulfield

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max Caulfield (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)

Some trivial mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to show that they pass real-world notability. Redirect was reverted without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not yet ready to !vote delete, but in case it's deleted, it should be salted. wumbolo ^^^ 09:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Topic appears to be notable. Lots of researched made. Good info. Mgbo120 (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Article has a good amount of info backed up with enough sources to gain notability, but may needs some trim. 181.176.184.61 (talk)

Struck SOCK !vote. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very well-sourced article, and contrary to the nominator's claim, most of the sources are more than mere mentions. Phediuk (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article seems to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep just because the notability is tied to multiple video games. We then have articles like [1] and [2] satisfying the reception section in the article. However, I can't find any articles purely about the development of the character, so my !vote is a weak keep with a possibility to merge. Definitely do not delete. wumbolo ^^^ 09:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just for informational purposes, this article was created (via unredirection) by a blocked sockmaster, and the IP that un-redirected is the same editor. That editor has also voted on this AFD, which I've struck. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In that case this AfD should be closed, and the article speedy deleted as a G5 deletion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: And? What's that got to do with the article itself? The Optimistic One (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2019 (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.