Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Brennan


 * 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 Protector (novel) . –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack Brennan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This character does not establish notability independent of Known Space through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Protector (novel) which covers the noteworthy parts of the plot already. There's no point in having several articles rehash the same plot. - Mgm|(talk) 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Major character in a notable novel from a notable series, whose actions have consequences outside of the single book, so should not be redirected to the article for that book (Brennan is also mentioned, for example, in Ringworld Engineers). Article is a broken-out article in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which according to WP:WAF "usually rely on the coverage of the parent topic, and may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements."  Article needs improvement to fix real-world perspective issues, but other than that can stand alone. JulesH (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No possible reason not to merge or at least redirect, and none is even asserted in the nomination, so listing for deletion is the wrong way to go about improving the article or wikipedia. This group of nominations is in total defiance of deletion policy & a wrong use of t he nominator';s and everyone else's efforts. Whether a merge is even appropriate is questionable, and in this case i would think certainly not, as a major character in a very notable book by one of the most important authors in the genre.  DGG (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per MGM. Ryan 4314   (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG (again). This is getting silly. Hobit (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Protector per MGM or "keep" per DGG. A redirect would seem to make the most sense. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.