Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Samurai Jack characters

: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 Samurai Jack. Tone 13:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

=[[List of Samurai Jack characters]]=

:{{la|List of Samurai Jack characters}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|List of Samurai Jack characters}})

Completely unreferenced, this article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 07:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It also is a duplicate of a section of Samurai Jack. —teb728 t c 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep or Redirect Keep, if we want to break out the article. Many fictional character lists have no explicit references, but rather are implicitly sourced to primary sources. Remember that a LIST can be notable even if no individual element is. Redirect if we determine that there's not enough there to maintain a separate article for the franchise. I have no opinion as to which, but turning a "List of..." syntax into a redlink when there's a perfectly good redirect target isn't helpful. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to Samurai Jack. That article isn't so long as to justify a break-out article and I don't think it's ever a good idea to source a stand-alone article entirely from the work of fiction itself. Original research inevitably creeps in. Reyk _YO! 09:04, 27 February 2011 (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.