Deletion of List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (A–C)

Comment: It seems obvious '''Wikipedia might be a little bit of a G.I. Joe toy catalog'''. There are these several lists and List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero action figures that states ''"covers every known character in the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero toy line to have received his/her own action figure"''. I am not against a list of the toys, hell, I played with them many years ago, but how much coverage do we need? There are some comments above I don't totally agree with. I agree with {{u|Toughpigs}} on all except . That is used a lot but also contains: {{tq|However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.}} I also agree with {{u|postdlf}}, {{u|BOZ}}, and Toughpigs, along with several others, that there needs to be a lot of trimming, possibly consolidating, and proper sourcing. I totally disagree with ''"That many of the sources are primary is not a concern for such lists, given that a work is the most reliable source for its own content"''.  The policy on Wikipedia:verifiability|verifiability states: {{tq|All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.}}  covers this.  discusses "independent reliable sources".  goes into pretty good detail concerning "Availability of secondary sources" and "Independent of the subject", and Wikipedia:Independent sources gives good coverage, that do not seem to be in agreement with the above statement. A statement was made I totally agree with: "I dislike the practice of deleting individual character pages for fictional characters, merging them to a list, and then trying to delete the list.", if that has happened. Articles dating back to 2005 that are bloated, lacking sources, and possibly too spread out, needs attention, but that is not within the scope of AFD. With clear consensus above "maybe" some knowledgeable editors will help out
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:PRIMARY||WP:LISTN||WP:SIGCOV)