Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Sloane


 * 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 to List of characters in Daria.. Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Sloane

 * ( [ 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, probably,to List of characters in Daria with an expanded description. Though not one of the groups there, he's more than background. The principal character's boyfriend usually is. And it seems to be sourced. so, as usual, "there is no assertion for future improvement' makes no sense at all--all articles can be improved if t. The show ended, but writing about it is only just beginning. If there is ever enough for a separate article, then it can be unmerged. DGG (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to list. THe one source cited provides only trivial commentary about the character. Fletcher (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I came back here to see if there were any comments and I found an ip editor had redirected it. I reverted. Either we need a longer discussion, or there's consensus to merge, not redirect. I leave it to some neutral admin to close as they see fit. DGG (talk) 05:21, 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) 00:11, 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) 17:16, 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.