Deletion of List of The Galaxy Railways characters

Comment: Such lists are a major issue that should be discussed in a large RfC. We have tens of thousands of them. Do they meet criteria for stand-alone list ()? Hmmm. There are certainly websites out there which among others provide such lists (and not just fan wikis, for example https://myanimelist.net/anime/1490/Ginga_Tetsudou_Monogatari/characters (however, all such sites I can think of tend to rely on volunteer contribution and are part-wiki anidb.net/anime/1000 (for some reason this is on out spam blacklist), https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/TheGalaxyRailways, https://www.anime-planet.com/anime/the-galaxy-railways/characters, IMDb, https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=2913). This may be enough to warrant keeping them as navigational aids that may meet our criteria, perhaps? The other argument I can see is that lists of characters are justifiable parts of plot summary, and can be spin-off main articles about works to stand-alone articles simply due to their lengths (this is covered under ). Anyway, I believe that we should not delete lists of characters without a major RfC
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST||WP:SIZESPLIT)

Comment: If The Galaxy Railways is notable, then a list of characters for it is expected and relies on those same RS'es whether or not they are included in this list article per .  If the series is not notable, however, then the series and all dependent articles like this should be deleted together.  As such, the nomination articulates no policy-based rationale for deleting ''only'' this list of characters article.  As has been pointed out above, 'cruft' (itself a non-policy based and pejorative word) is not solved by deletion, but by actually editing it out
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)

Comment: As per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, it is acceptable to have no sourcing as it is assumed the work itself is the source for plot summaries (and by extension, character summaries).  While merging this article back to its parent is the obvious , it would not be the best option as it would make the characters section half of the article, a clear example of . However, a cleaned up and denser version could be mergeable, and I wouldn't be opposed someone bold merging if such version is created
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:UNDUE)