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 no consensus. and not likely to emerge, Merging is an editorial decision, there is no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bani Walia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (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) 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google turned up very few hits which included fan sites, blogs, and video hosts. Unlikely sources exist to establish notability. Article is entirely plot summary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as for such things in general. An appropriate summary of the information does not seem to be in the main article on the show. Probable a separate page for characters of is warranted. and, as a minimum, Redirect. This needn't come here, unless someone is prepared to give an argument why even a redirect from the name of a principal character is unwarranted. DGG (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/(Delete)/Redirect for consisting solely of content that wikipedia is not for in such detail (unsourced plot). – sgeureka ^t•c 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge per everyone, notable unoriginal research verified in reliable sources. Needs to exist in some capacity. Also per boilerplate nomination “rationales” across multiple AfDs.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or perhaps merge into single character article. Main character of what appears to be a fairly major show. Cites in the article are on the weak side, but are third party and independent. Strongly suspect non-english sources may exist Hobit (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or perhaps merge; non-notable, lacks sources. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.