Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jak (Jak and Daxter)

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 redirect to Jak & Daxter (series). MBisanz ^talk 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jak (Jak and Daxter)

This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the namesake character of several video games, in accordance with the treatment of similar video game characters. Is this the best name for the article? JJL (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Several video games' in real numbers equals 4. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, contrary to the nom's claim of WP:N; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. There are also no verifiable sources cited anywhere. MuZemike (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jak and Daxter as a plausible search term. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge non-plot-duplicative content (VAs and the like) to Jak & Daxter (series) -MASEM 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:OR. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect see Jelly Soup's reason. --TONO459 (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Jak & Daxter (series). No sources, thus not notable or verifiable. But seeing as its mere existence can be verified, and it's highly significant to the series, a redirect is a fair compromise. Randomran (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Since primary sources exist, WP:V can be met even though not WP:N, and deletion is not required. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:09, 18 September 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.