Deletion of Cluedo characters

Comment: Beg pardon??? Almost none of the statements in the article are backed up by reliable sources. I bring for example the Colonel Mustard section. "Weaving together the strands collected from Clue mythologies and Hasbro's lore" - that's a patent example of |original research. The closest thing managed to a citation is "there is a rumor from the movie" - that's very doubtful, and doesn't answer the questions about the veracity of the entire rest of the article. For that matter, please read  ''again'' - the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article, ''not'' the editor proposing deletion. I would ask in return that ''you'' provide evidence that even the majority of statements in the article are properly sourced per . Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: You're incorrect about the citations - the book itself is the source for most of the claims (and I have added and am maintaining the cite.php format); page numbers are helpful but not mandatory. Nevertheless I will be adding page numbers over the next month as I have time, and I have added external links for claims not directly related to the book. I am going to |assume good faith and not take this as an example of retribution for "attacking" a favored article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: By single source, I mean that there is only one source (not even a reliable source) in the article. As for "verifiable in principle," that does not meet the |verifiability policy that I posted for all discussion participants to read in my nomination for deletion - as the policy states, The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. There are no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, therefore Wikipedia should not have this article. Not that I do not in any way dispute the article on notability grounds, but that is not the primary reason to delete an article. Failing policy is grounds for deletion, and this article fails the tripod of core policies: , , and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)