Deletion of Man-At-Arms

Comment: per Piotrus. The sources don't satisfy the . A closer look shows that they barely mention the character and some coverage being touted doesn't mention the character at all. There's a chance that the passing mentions still provide something worth discussing as part of another notable article. This isn't notable by itself and should be deleted or merged
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Topic lacks coverage to satisfy 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: striking my keep !vote above. I wrote above that there were a few trivial mentions to ''barely'' meet the . But a closer inspection of the sources shows that some of the sources don't mention the subject at all. I remain of the belief that a merge would be an acceptable compromise, as what little sourceable material would be better as part of a proper article instead of a stub (plus unsourced garbage). But I'm watching the discussion shift, and I'd support deletion if it helps form a consensus
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: all the coverage in the sources seems to be name drops, brief mentions, or otherwise don't support notability. For example, the first source doesn't even discuss him. The second is a name drop and doesn't discuss him. The sixth doesn't discuss him either. The seventh just says he "helped He-Man in his battle against the evil forces of Skeletor." The 8th is another name drop. So is the 9th (in a picture caption none the less, not even the context of the article). The 10th source is a dead link. All those sources are a text book example of sources that fail . It's pretty clear whoever posted them didn't bother to actually check any of them. Likely they just posted links to whatever came up in a Google without putting anymore thought into it. Clearly, the other keep voters didn't actually review them before voting keep either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)