Deletion of Ashley Williams (Mass Effect)

Comment: I could see how someone might say that there's issues with  weight, with editors overemphasizing certain primary (or even secondary) sources too much. But aside from too much detail and weight in certain statements, I see no issues with this article. There's lots of good references to pass AFD with flying colors. It looks like it even has the potential to be a good article one day
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: Lazy nomination; either nominator didn't actually read the article or its sources, or it's just a case of . At the very least, why the current sources are inadequate should have been discussed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: PC Gamer'', ''GamesRadar'', ''Gamasutra'', ''VentureBeat'', just to name a few, are not fan magazines for the ''Mass Effect'' series. I believe it is ridiculous to suggest that an article examining religious issues in video games published by the Institute of Religious Studies under the University of Heidelberg and a published book discussing video game characters fit anywhere near an objective definition of a "fan magazine". I don't believe  contains a precise definition of what your assertion of "real world" notability is other then the standard notability guideline. Could you elaborate on how the sources I mentioned are not '''|reliable sources''' based on guidelines provided by /S which provide significant coverage that are independent of the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:VG)