Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Tan


 * 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 Batman Beyond. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Dana Tan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Batman Beyond. JJL (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This reads like a really minor character. VG &#x260E; 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Batman Beyond. The article is made up of primarily OR and when you take that out there's not much left. JuJube (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too minor to merge and redirect in my opinion.  Full of original research as well.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  09:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect as a likely search term. Redirects are free. Hiding T 10:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. The article could be recreated if appropriate references were added. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect: to Batman Beyond. She is one of the main characters, even though the article makes it seem likes she's minor. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge a sufficient amount of content. the continued nomination for deletion when merging or redirect is appropriate is a poor use of AfD--perhaps the continuing excess may serve as a reason for making it clear that doing so is against policy. DGG (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as this character establishes notability independent of its series. With coverage in reliable third party sources, it is made up of necessary plot summary and unoriginal research. --63.3.1.1 (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No Gnews. Article is original research and plot summary, despite our familiar friend's claim above.  No need to inflate the importance of this character as some hyper-important main character in order to rag on TTN.  She is a minor character.  The character itself is not covered in reliable sources.  wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2008 (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.