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 merge. WjBscribe 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Mendell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Given the existence of a "list of Studio 60 characters" article already, Wikipedia need not have an article covering every secondary, minor character on the show, especially when said character appeared on screen for only half an episode. Potential copyvio with the tirade transcription, too, methinks. — Whedonette (ping) 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As per WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Notability#Dealing with non-notable topics, AFD is not the way to deal with articles on minor characters for which there is only a little verifiable information. Please adhere to the guidelines. Uncle G 14:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the guidelines you cite support your premise. In fact, one specifically supports mine. — Whedonette (ping) 16:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please read them again, paying particular attention to the words in WP:FICT that are in boldface. Uncle G 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:AFD isn't a vote count; the closing administrator examines the quality of the arguments made for and against the retention of an article. I am not going to attempt to work against my own purpose by trying to flesh out your argument for you simply because you are choosing to be curtly brief. If you feel this article should not be deleted, it's your responsibility to — civilly, by the way, and without the condescensing tone you're using in your responses — explain your argument, in the hopes that the closing admin will lend greater weight to the quality of the argument you laid down.
        It is my position that given that Wes Mendell appeared in part of one episode and has been referred to only very sporadically — if at all — since, and thus very easily can be defined as a minor character, whereas one would not make the same argument about, say, Harriet Hayes. The notability criteria guideline you link to, and suggest that I should adhere to, states that minor characters "should be merged with short descriptions into a 'List of characters.' This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice."
        My nomination is based on this very guideline you're linking to, especially given such a character-list article for Studio 60 already exists. And the appropriate venue to discuss removing the articles of minor characters and merging their content into a character-list article — the solution advocated by the page you linked to — is WP:AFD, this very venue we're in at the moment. — Whedonette (ping) 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong. What I've written is perfectly civil. I've linked to the pages with the explanations; there was and is no need for me to re-type their contents here. That's why we have such pages. As for your nomination being based upon the guidelines and this being the appropriate venue: This is not "Articles for merging". This is Articles for deletion. Please go and read the guidelines again, clicking on the hyperlink on the word "merging". Uncle G 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think I can count on one hand the number of times someone accused of being uncivil has said, "You're right, I'm being uncivil," so there's really no use us debating the issue of whether or not you've been civil. Obviously, I disagree, but it's not as black and white as other situations on the wiki. As for the explanations, I've quoted portions of the pages you've linked to which support my nomination, and, again, it's really up to you to support your statement with arguments. This venue was once called votes for deletion; it no longer is. If you're content to let your statement stand upon what you've already said, I'm certainly not going to argue, as such an action only assists the deletion of this article. — Whedonette (ping) 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 04:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters per WP:FICT. Why is this even a question? Otto4711 06:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Otto4711. I believe this is how the other associated AfDs were handled. Caknuck 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Otto. No question. -- Scientizzle 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Otto and per WP:FICT, point 2:

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.

I think it's fair to say there is a consensus for merging, so I'll go ahead and perform the merge. -- Black Falcon 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Merge performed. All that's left is to redirect the page to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters and tag it with ((R from merge)). I will leave this until after the discussion is closed. -- Black Falcon 23:46, 27 March 2007 (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.