Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chumlee

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chumlee

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

Cool guy, not notable apart from the show. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable for being the breakout character of that series, and as a result, has developed a secondary career in making paid public appearances, and has appeared in other media, including merchandising and an episode of the TV show iCarly. This easily qualifies him for notability. I've added five secondary sources to the article to support the breakout character issue, in addition to the other couple of secondary sources that were already in the article. In addition, he does indeed have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, as his merchandise regularly outsells that of the other characters on the show, which satisfies Criterion #2 under WP:ENTERTAINER. Nightscream (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nightscream. He's gotten plenty of press coverage, like this article today, which devotes several paragraphs to him. Is this you, Old Man? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like pretty solid referencing. I wouldn't have thought there would be all that much to say about him, but it's a decent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2013 (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.