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 Masters of the Universe (film). Completely unrefereced with 3rd party info and frankly some of the Keep voters should be slapped with a very large trout. Should be a clear delete, but there's a possible merge target so let's go for that.Black Kite 00:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blade (Masters of the Universe)

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consists entirely of original research. Pcap ping 06:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, minor and trivial character (not notable) -- article also violates our no original research policy. JBsupreme (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge adequately. An examination of the article proposed to merge to is the sort of merge that gives insufficient information, and is not adequate. It would be better to keep that to lose information in this fashion--information that is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree this article is completely without sources, it is much better to lose the information in this fashion. There is nothing verifiable here to merge. JBsupreme (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Extremely trivial character with no sourcing to demonstrate notability. I remember watching the movie as a sprog and wondering who the heck these mercenaries were supposed to be, and that was back then. Deletify with prejudice. Someone another 22:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Redirect to Masters of the Universe (film), this is first and foremost a film character, and since film articles tend to have fairly extensive actor lists the character and actor could be listed there. Someone another 02:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect somewhere. Abductive (reasoning) 07:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether that means to continue to improve, or redirect with edit history intact as no actual reason/need exists for deleting it to Masters_of_the_Universe_(film)#Cast. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, we do not redlink what has a valid redirect location and what is not a hoax nor libelous. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced and without merit 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'keepsies or maybe merge to list of characters somewhere. Sourcing shouldn't be too hard. Unfortunately the large comicbook shops in Sydney are not on my usual routes. Dead-tree searchnig is required. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2010 (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.