Talk:Chase Edmunds

Chase Edmunds is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Television: 24

	Television portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
	This redirect is supported by the 24 task force.

Fictional characters

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Possibility of death?

Valencia, CA was nuked in season 6. Perhaps coincidental, but Chase was living with Kim there before they split up. If he were still living there at the time of season 6, he might have clashed with an atomic blast and lost? Might give closure to the character if this were so. RPM 03:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

No, definetly not. He was the longest and most true of Kim's boyfriends, an incredibly major character in every episode of Season 3, and a part of the main cast for that season. Keep--Phoenixfan 10:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

The previous discussion was non-existent with one highly emotional and policy free argument for merging.

The character should be merged with the Minor CTU Agents because the character appeared in only one season of the shown and has no ongoing in universe notability. The character is not mentioned as being of any importance outside of the show, showing no external notability. The character is also difficult to talk about in non-in-universe context. This is due to the ease of the article being just a plot summary and the ease of which OR and Cruft can be slipped in to the article. The article is also currently lacking reliable sources 24 Wikia is not reliable.

An example of plot summary is the entire 24:The Game section, OR and Cruft can be found in the Pre and Post CTU section and referencing is needed in the day 3 section.

If all that is cleaned up and notability both in universe currently and external from the 24 universe, can be asserted then most of the criteria for a separate article is fulfilled, if not the article is a prime candidate for deletion. At the moment all is is plot summary by fans.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your above statement is rambling, and the premise is untrue. This article was specifically mentioned in the restoration section of the Minor 24 agents talk page before you hid it by archiving. I'll agree that the article needs a rewrite, but the consensus was that it stays. TunaSushi (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the consensus was to KEEP this article. Clean up and improve, fine. Merge/Delete, NO. Lucy, you really need to give up trying to delete almost every page relating to 24 characters simply because you think they’re unimportant. You already tried this once and lost and you will lose this round as well. --208.180.22.12 (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can notability in the real world for this character be asserted?--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy why did you delete the previous comments? I've added them back in. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting deletion and merging they are not the same--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comments were not deleted the page had been redirected to the minor characters talk page and a fresh discussion was started.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Lucy is once more trying to impose her will on Wikipedia even when the consensus is against her. It doesn’t matter if a character is no longer on the show. If he/she contributed significantly to the development of the overall series, then they should have their own page. Chase was a main character for all of Season 3, playing a vital role throughout that entire season. For this reason alone, this article should NOT be merged. Of course Lucy will come back with some Wikibabble using bits and pieces of the rules as “proof” she’s right even though no one else supports her positions. --MiB-24 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the merger tag. It was ridiculous and unsupported. Angelriver (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second merger talks

Resolved

– Only one user in favour of merge. No merge. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 11:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of real-world coverage by WP:RS to define WP:N. Merge would be uncalled for. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 03:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only two reliable independent sources, that is hardly reliable. Most of the refrences are the show, 1 is a walk through and 1 is Fox itself, notability is usually established with a minimum of 3 reliable real-world disinterested sources. --Lucy-marie (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's my rationale for keeping the article as a separate article (I don't believe I've !voted in this merger). The fact that Chase was a main character in the season he was in leads me to believe that at the time, there were more reliable references about this character, however have been lost, or taken down from the internet, since that time. What is in the article is what I was able to find in archives. As I see an article, such as Janis Gold, for example, which has quite a few reliable references, and she's played far less a role than Chase did in his respective season, I'm willing to assume that at the time, enough references existed to assert notability. The fact that he's a main character in a season of a highly notable TV series also leans me towards keeping the article. (Additionally, while there are a lot of references that cite the show, you will note they are to cite plot information. While this isn't entirely necessary, I think it's preferred. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that notability should be able to be established after the season has ended and the show has ended. If this is not possible then the character does not have lasting notability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy, the fact of the matter is, everyone disagrees with you. If you can't convince us as to why this character is not notable, there would be no consensus for the merge. Simply asserting you are right is not adequate. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not really a policy basis put forward against merging and the previous discussion should not be used in this new discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merger proposal per other comments. Consensus is clear. Chzz ► 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please state your own detailed reasons as the is not a vote.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally ridiculous, of course. Lucy-marie, this merger has already been discussed. Consensus has already formed to keep the article. You have been reverted by two admins who agree with Steve. I would think and hope that, by now, you would have gotten the point that this article is staying put. What you are doing is bordering on disruptive, so please stop. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep personal opinions about specific users to your self and comment on the content of the discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "discussion" is over. You're the only one who wants a merge. The consensus is against you. There will be no merge. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 11:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from off topic comments specific to individual users.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making merge requests that nobody else agrees with. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 11:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't restart this discussion, Ched did.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with the previous discussion is not restarting it. Saying you disagree with the previous discussion, like you did, is restarting the discussion. Not that it matters, it's not getting merged. So, either you can waste time here by continuing to request it, or you can do something productive. I, too, have wasted more time talking to you than I'd hoped. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 14:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]