Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy O'Neill


 * 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. merge results don't need an AFD and this is far from overwhelming so default to keep Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Timothy O'Neill
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of its series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement. TTN (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to the list of characters, as usual. I never did figure out why these are brought him, except that perhaps even the merged content would be though objectionable by the nom--but that's a content dispute. DGG' (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge completed, decided to boldly follow DGG's advice. 128.223.131.21 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd settle for a merge for the time being, but knowing TTN's rampages of destruction of articles, it should never have been nominated. DanTD (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * coming back to check, i se the ip who thought he was following my advice, redirected instead of merging. So of course I reverted it, and leave this to someone neutral to close as they see fit. But this does echo my comment, that the opposition to merging seems to come from the fact that often the content is destroyed completely--just like was attempted by some anon right here just now. I'll accept in good faith that he thought he was helping. DGG (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge this and all the other character articles into List of characters in Daria. Article as is is essentially just an extended plot summary.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]]Keep contra nom due to notability, coverage in reliable third party sources, and as necessary unoriginal research. Suggesting that any article can not somehow be improved is a salutary gesture of pessimism, but not a serious argument.  Thus, the nominator is quite wrong.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect Not covered in reliable, independent sources in any significant detail. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 8 November 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.