Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose (Two and a Half men)

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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (Two and a Half men)[edit]

no indication of why this character needs a separate article to what is already in the main article. noq (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a character that has appered a lot in the sitcom and those have a good story.Pedro thy master (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Two and a Half Men. not a lead in the series. not notable on her own. already enough information in the original article.--camr ^nag 01:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's totally notable.[1] I added a couple refs to get it started. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. she has almost an appearance every 2 episodes, maybe more. but she is still a secondary character, whose story and personality can be easily covered in the original article. also "totally notable" is kind of weird. making a search for "rose" "two and a half men" will probably give you many results, but she is still a secondary character. "judith" "two and a half men" would too, but there's no way judith should have her own article.--camr ^nag 13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is determined by sources, not by how large a role the character plays in the series. The main characters for a lot of less famous series can't pass WP:NOTE, and sometimes characters who appear just once can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
but like i said, looking for sources (on google, for example) could, in this case, be very confusing.--camr ^nag 18:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and please, compare the info on the main article and the one on this one... it makes no sense to have this article. the Two and a Half Men article makes it very obvious that all the information for the character can be contained within the original article.--camr ^nag 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has sufficient sourcing for an independent article. Merger is an editorial decision, and would probably make sense in this case, but there's no policy-based reason to delete this article rather than merging. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yea, Jclemens pretty much nails it. Enough WP:RS to show that character is WP:N - and really that's the bottom line here. Although it's frowned upon, I could also mention some cartoon characters that have their own articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Add to that the direction that WP:FICT has been headed over the last half-year, and I'd say there's a fair chance if it did get deleted, it would simply be recreated within a couple months. The article could use more sourcing, but what's there establishes the key "keep" reasons. On a closing note, I'll say that I do "like" being able to keep an eye on Rose. (those familiar with the character might see a touch of irony in that ;)) — Ched : ? 18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 50 episodes it says in the information box. That makes the character notable, having been featured in 50 episodes, of a notable show. Dream Focus 23:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep standard fictional character entry that is verifiable and notable, too big t be merged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this actually seems to be a main character rather than just a recurring character. -- Banjeboi 19:59, 28 July 2009 (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.