Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowley (Supernatural)

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crowley (Supernatural)

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

very weak sourcing establishing notability with massive amounts of WP:OR. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More sources are being added, and most seeming instances of WP:OR can be traced to episodes sourced.Bjones (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - content is almost entirely WP:INUNIVERSE, sourced to episodes of the show. I can't see any significant coverage independent of the subject (ie. not the show itself) should would allow the subject to pass WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The 'bio' should be rewritten but there are four external sources apart from the show itself. Jostain12 (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are blogs and coverage of the actor, with only passing mentions of the character. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 4 January 2015 (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.