Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walden Schmidt


 * 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 redirect to List of Two and a Half Men characters. Commenters didn't specify a target but this one seems most appropriate. No prejudice against using some of the content to expand that section (if appropriate within other policies/standards), but consensus is that this plot-only article should not stand on its own. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Walden Schmidt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION. The article is pure plot summary, aside of the section on 'character development', but that is almost entirely and at much bigger length covered at Two_and_a_Half_Men already. While that incident that led to one actor being fired and another being added (with this character introduced to the show), I don't see what makes this overgrown plot summary merit its own stand-alone article. Also note that Articles for deletion/Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men) was just closed as delete with nobody objecting - this is no better. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep No, Articles for deletion/Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men) was not just closed as delete. The actual result was redirect and so all the content and edit history is still there.  See WP:HONEST. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Honestly, don't you think your vote should have a rationale? WP:AFDNOTAVOTE and NOTARANT either. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's easy to see that Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men) is a blue link not a red link and the full history back to 2008 is still available. Nothing was deleted in that case and this is as it should be per our policy WP:PRESERVE.  There's no case for deletion in this similar case either and so my !vote stands, being based on both policy and accurate evidence. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , All you are making the case for is that WP:SOFTDELETE is preferable to hard delete. Which I actually agree with. But you are still not providing any policy-based argument for voting keep. Redirecting after a soft delete is not the same as 'keeping' the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Deletion is use of the function which restricts view of the page and its history to admins. That's the primary purpose of these discussions -- to establish whether an admin is empowered to use this function.  Anything else means that we keep the content and its history in public view for further development.  Two and a Half Men is a large topic which merits more than one page to cover all its various aspects – it currently has over 20.  Exactly how this is sliced and diced is comparatively unimportant.  See WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:PRESERVE.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The blatant falsehood of the nomination has still not been addressed, "note that Articles for deletion/Alan Harper (Two and a Half Men) was just closed as delete". The actual close of that nomination was not delete and so the content is still there.  Bludgeoning is quite inappropriate in such circumstances.  See The Mote and the Beam. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect - The means of the character being written into the show are definitely relevant to the character, but it is much more relevant to the actual show and the Sheen debacle. Given that it is ultimately just going to be a duplication of information, it's not really something that can be used to justify the character article. If some good reception sources can be found, it might be salvageable. TTN (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect - some of the sources currently in the article looked like they would help establish that the character meets WP:GNG, but when reading them I did not find that they provide any depth of coverage. I also failed to find appropriate coverage to argue that GNG is met when I did a BEFORE-style search. I'll watchlist this AfD discussion in case others have more success in finding good sources than I did. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect fails GNG, Andrew is not making any argument to keep SK2242 (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.