Agree--LOCI! Agree--lewisg 15:25, 12 December 2006 (PST)

Agree--Mr.Leaf15:55, 13 December 2006 (PST)

Agree --Marik7772003 21:26, 13 December 2006 (PST)

Disagree - Is there proof that a) Tom was married to Connor's mother, and that b) the baby took Tom's name? It is common sense, but it is conjecture, unlike the case for Clementine Phillips. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 03:00, 14 December 2006 (PST)

Disagree - Santa's reasons. -Chris[dt7] 03:25, 14 December 2006 (PST)

Comment - I think it's reasonable to assume some things such as last names especially when it comes to relatives such as wife/husband, mother/father or children, unless stated otherwise in a canon source. I'll abstain from voting, because as long as the article is clear that he's Tom Brennan's son, it makes little difference to me what the article is called. --Elvis 09:42, 14 December 2006 (PST)

Agree -if the article is to pass deletion, it needs to be renamed, because there will be no information to otherwise prove he is Tom Brennan's son. As this character will obviously not play a role in any other future episodes, the assumption that Connor took his father's name is a safe one. David 17:20 15 December 2006 (PST)

  • Note: The transcript states that the family unit is still intact: "TOM: Yeah, well, it's Rachael; it's not me. KATE: Where is she?TOM: She's over in Cedar Rapids visiting her folks. They get back on Sunday." Therefore I might be inclined to change my mind and go with the presumed last name. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk  18:07, 16 December 2006 (PST)

Decision Looks like a pretty strong consensus for name change (agreed also), given Santa's change of mind in last paragraph. There's no indication the writers meant it to be anything other than a standard nuclear family, or else I'm sure they would have said something in the script as to that fact. --PandoraX 10:28, 20 December 2006 (PST)


  • Delete instead Does this really merit anything more than a mention on the Tom Brennan page? -BearDog 15:31, 12 December 2006 (PST)
  • Delete--CaptainInsano 16:22, 12 December 2006 (PST)
  • Delete Due to lack of material to use in expanding this article, other than maybe to use the baby's image from Tom's page. Thus, this page would possibly remain a stub. The page can be deleted for now, and recreated later if new sufficient info showed up.-- 16:26, 12 December 2006 (PST)
  • Keep Every character deserves a page. --lewisg 04:34, 13 December 2006 (PST)
  • Keep I added the other knowledge we knew about Connor and added a info box, and picture. This page now has as much information as quite a few other character pages, it should stay.--Mr.Leaf 15:56, 13 December 2006 (PST)
  • Keep - We have articles for inconsequential TLE characters mentioned briefly in websites, and nearly every minor character in Bad Twin, noncanon characters from the diary, and even characters from the hidden section of Look in the category for Unseen Characters; nearly all of these should be deleted if this one is, even "major" ones such as Clementine_Phillips and Jae Lee's American woman. The only defining feature might be that we fans might guess that either 1) the writers will return to this character in future plot elements, or even show this character, or 2) the writers only mentioned this character in passing once, just to fill in "realistic" details to serve that episode's script. Actually, about a half year ago, we had a similar debate, and someone mentioned something like: "if we have an article for such-and-such guest actor, we'll have to have an article for every minor character in Lost, including that guy whose son had to go pee in Jin's flashback." Well now we do have almost every guest actor and minor character, including the Poor man, and it seems to serve the mission of LP well. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  Talk 02:58, 14 December 2006 (PST)
  • Keep - There is actually a name and picture was provided in the show for this character, unlike some other characters where all we have is a brief description for a "name" or the character never appears on screen or was only mentioned in conversation. --Elvis 09:42, 14 December 2006 (PST)
  • Keep for the same resons Elvis states.--LOCI!
  • Keep if... Keep if renamed, for it has been established above that no new information will be forthcoming. Every character deserves a page, true, but every character also deserves a last name. And plus, why would Tom refer to his son "my son Connor Brennan". He'd say "my son Connor". So, keep on that condition. David 17:23 15 December 2006 (PST)
  • KEEP!! i strongly believe that its worth it to have every detail of the show and who knows? this could become important--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Missbronte (talkcontribs) 20:11, 16 December 2006.
  • Keep Don't see why not. He's got a name, and a photo, which is more than many character pages here have, and you never know what info is important. I will, however, rename given the above. --PandoraX 10:26, 20 December 2006 (PST)
  • Keep: Marik7772003 11:25, 20 December 2006 (PST)
  • Keep More information = Better site
  • Keep: --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  03:03, 28 December 2006 (PST)

Decision 11:3 consensus to keep for now. --PandoraX 16:16, 2 January 2007 (PST)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.