Hi everybody, do you support me merging this article to List of Batman supporting characters#Film, with this entry:

• Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman): Appears only in Batman Forever as the female lead. Kidman described the character as a "criminal psychologist who dresses like Jessica Rabbit."^[1] Robin Wright turned down the role while Jeanne Tripplehorn and Linda Hamilton were also both considered.^[2] Chase is a psychiatrist working with the Gotham City police and falls in love with both Batman and Bruce Wayne. She assists Bruce in analyzing a series of befuddling threats sent to him by the Riddler and also witnesses the death of Robin's parents. Later she learns Bruce is Batman and is kidnapped by the Riddler and Two-Face in a trap designed to make Batman choose between her and Robin. Batman saves them both and Chase promises to keep his identity secret.

Ryan4314 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --EEMIV (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to memorability of the character and potential for further growth. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --character itself fails WP:N, and entry presented is a good, succinct description of a one-time character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Single film character, all casting information is already (or should be) on the Batman Forever page. There is no need to duplicate plot info and casting info from that page over to this one. To be frank, the character lacks notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Character appears in one film; all relevant real-world casting information can easily be incorporated at parent article. Steve ^{T • C} 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Merge If the information is valid enough to exist, and there is enough of it to fill its own article, there is no reason to merge it. There is no shortage of space to have articles. WP:NOTPAPER. As I said in the AFD discussion, she is the first love interest of Batman shown in a movie, that wasn't originally in a comic book. That makes her notable, and one more reason for her to have her own article. Dream Focus 23:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed your link. "NOT PAPER" isn't the same place as "NOTPAPER". I hate it when people throw "PAPER" out there like it's the get out of jail free card from Monopoly. NOTPAPER clearly says: "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion. There is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done." An article about a one time film character who is barely notable in the film itself, let alone outside of it, doesn't really meet the criteria of "what reasonably should be done".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose target. I don't know of a better place for a merge, but burying her in that article is not ideal. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A minor character doesn't warrant an article, better merging. Future growth? The character has never reappeared! Justin talk 23:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in a different manner... merge real-world context to the "Cast" section at Batman Forever and include Chase Meridian as a brief blurb at the proposed "Love interests" section. Definitely, definitely does not warrant her own article. She is only notable in the context of the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't that really be like "Conditionaly support"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sort of. :) From what I can tell, Steve's thinking parallels mine for Batman Forever being the parent article. It was not what Ryan proposed, though... if he's okay with merging to the film article, too, then I'd support the motion. Just making that clear for all. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see anything that could be merged. A part from the plot from this page (which is really just details from the film's plot), the casting stuff is already at Batman Forever#Production. So, if you think it would be better in the "Cast" section, it's really a matter of rearranging that article. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if most of the article contents here is merged, and not to a paragraph within the section, but to a separate numbered section, and the other other similar characters handled similarly. Probably the love interests group should be a separate article, as was done with villains. Object otherwise. (Essentially, exactly the opposite of Bignole's view.) My general rationale is that it helps comprehension of complicated multipart fictions if one approaches it through the characters, and if it repeats a little plot, there';s no harm in that. DGG (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposite of me? I don't care where or how it is merged, I just said it doesn't warrant a whole article all to itself. If it's merged to BF, fine. If it's merged to LoC, fine too. There's a little bit of OR mixed into this page's plot description, but either way, is all of this really necessary: "She runs her fingers through his suit's chest, and he tries to leave because he fears he'll become attracted to her, but she stops him and removes her coat to reveal black lingerie" (the middle part about his fears is the OR part, because he never actually says anything to that affect). Like I said, I don't care where it goes, it just doesn't need, or warrant a page to itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ryan's idea. It eliminates the unnecessary uncited fictional plot summary that this article contains and includes her within the proper context of the film. ThemFromSpace 01:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per dream focus. Adeqately referenced, no WP:DEADLINE Ikip (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note that a ANI has started about canvassing related to this merge discussion. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the new canvas policy is: Editors can canvas one supporting side, and only when they are caught, they then must notify everyone else. Ikip (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has been notified, it does not matter when they were notified (see your DEADLINE link). You are simply trying to oppose this merge via other means, i.e. proposing it be stopped at ANI. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Content is good, but does not warrant it's own article. yandman 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, brevity is good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merger. A one-off character needs a considerable amount of real-world information (>= 3 paragraphs) that isn't already present in the parent article to make a WP:SPINOUT article advisable. This condition is not met here. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. Current article duplicates material elsewhere and content is more appropriately combined with more substantive topics. ALR (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]