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 Blazer Drive. My usual compromise in delete / merge splits: editors can decide what, if anything (sourceable) to merge from the history. Sandstein 09:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blazer Drive characters[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Boleyn (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to parent article Blazer Drive, standard list of characters for notable series. Please consider WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD options before starting deletion nominations. postdlf (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Postdlf, they were considered. A redirect would be misleading, as it does not contain a list of characters. Merging and adding an abbreviated list would also be unnecessary and misleading as it wouldn't be what would be expected - a full list. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. The parent article currently lacks any character descriptions, and is exactly where this content would go if it were not to be kept in a standalone list. I'll also note that both Reyk and Rorshacma below are completely wrong in their claim as to what the present lack of sources in this list means. First, the issue at AFD is whether it can be sourced, not whether it is at present; if it can be, then the solution is to fix it. Second, statements that describe the content of primary sources can be sourced to those primary sources; secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the overall topic, not for every detail of our coverage of it. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Badly sourced fancruft written in a primarily in-universe style. Since there is little or no sourced content, there is nothing that can be merged anywhere. And the obvious target is itself already very crufty and poorly sourced-- shovelling even more unsourced cruft into it would make it worse, not better. Reyk _YO! 16:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I have mentioned in some similar recent nominations, while it is fairly standard to have character lists for notable series, the information in those lists still needs to be referenced to reliable, secondary sources. This character list does not contain a single bit of reliably sourced information, and thus it just should not be preserved. Keeping or merging non-sourced information is just counter to Wikipedia's policies. If the article were to be rewritten in a way that it was not entirely comprised of in-universe, non-sourced plot information, it could be a valid spinout, but a quick look for sources is turning up nothing that would allow for such an article to be written. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE Published monthly in a magazine for 33 months. The magazine lasted only six years with the circulation dropping to 18,000 before it got canceled. Not sure how many people actually read this series. No anime made from it so couldn't been that popular. The character list can be shortened and merged to the main article. Dream Focus 00:51, 28 June 2020 (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.