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. postdlf (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kelso[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced original research about a fictional character. Do we use wp:BIO for fictional people? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, we don't. Consider using WP:FICT and WP:WAF instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would think this is a no duh for a notable subject. Just because it is in bad shape doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Somebody just needs to take the time to work on it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a GNews search adding "Kutcher" to the character's quoted name reveals plenty of RS news hits, which suggests that the character is notable, regardless of how badly written the current article is--and yes, it does look like a real stinker on my skimming. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having checked WP:BEFORE with policies such as WP:FICT and taken a look at other featured fictional character articles, I found some independent sources and for the in-universe content cited everything with ((cite episode)). The Storyline section is particularly accurate to the episode summaries and I was about to source a few independent episode summaries to corroborate the Wikipedia ones such as TV Guide. While not as verbose as say [1] it still should be taken at the same depth of credibility. Lastly, the issue now at hand is that the article has one section that appears largely original research and finding more sources, but notability has been established in the scale of other fictional character articles and the rest are surmountable problems. Mkdw ^talk 23:28, 28 December 2012 (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.