Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cobb Vanth

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. No prejudice against an AfD at a later time. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb Vanth[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Minor character, no real world significance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Minor character, but still received coverage, and will most likely have more in the future. Probably a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 01:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a few days, even, for more third-party commentary to roll in, but leaning toward keep or redirect. If nothing else, the nascent real-world reaction section can handily be merged to the show or character list page, and we'd want that revision history. --EEMIV (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect. Agreed with EEMIV. A few okay sources for the reception section but hardly a convincing case for anyone who may have doubts about notability, hardly any developmental information at all. The creation of this article is a case of WP:TOOSOON, as this character is currently on the cusp of notability in my view, though my prediction is that the character will get further reliable, independent coverage in the months or years to come. Haleth (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to draft: WP:TOOSOON. Dark knight 2149 22:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good coverage in the Radio Times ("Who is Cobb Vanth? Timothy Olyphant’s Mandalorian character explained"), ScreenRant ("The Mandalorian’s Marshal & Armor Explained (Canon Backstory)") and TechRadar ("Did The Mandalorian season 2 just set up a Star Wars TV spin-off with Cobb Vanth?"). It's gone beyond the TOOSOON point; the character is actually getting coverage, and this has become a notable topic. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Borderline. There is a reception section and he is named by some sources, so it's not all passing sentence, but the coverage is still niche. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Toughpigs. There is coverage specifically about the character. Along with Toughpigs' sources above, there is GamesRadar+ (Timothy Olyphant's Cobb Vanth needs to be the first Mandalorian character with his own Disney Plus spin-off), Comic Book Resources (The Mandalorian: Timothy Olyphant's Cobb Vanth May Be Star Wars' Best... Villain!?), and CinemaBlend (The Mandalorian Season 2 Premiere: 6 Reasons Why Timothy Olyphant Is The Best Thing About 'The Marshal'). I could understand if someone said that this coverage is still mostly tied to the episode ("Chapter 9: The Marshal") so I could see a valid argument for redirecting the article there or to The Mandalorian character list, but there is enough at least limited coverage that an outright deletion would not make sense in this case. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly enough coverage.Perdikos (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2020 (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.