Talk:Chase Edmunds

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possibility of death? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I deleted the merger tag. It was ridiculous and unsupported. Angelriver (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I deleted the merger tag. It was ridiculous and unsupported. Angelriver (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Please refrain from making merge requests that nobody else agrees with. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 11:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't restart this discussion, Ched did.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Second merger talks