Deletion of Ash (Alien)

Comment: Ash seems to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, passing , but there's no indication of that for any of the others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: aka '''Redirect all but ash''' which appears to be the emerging consensus. Can't  for any except for ash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:verifynotability)

Comment: I strongly applaud UngleG's improvements to the Ash article, however I also strongly feel that the critical analysis being added would be better suited to the Alien (film) article itself, as its FA review specifically called for more content of exactly this type. Building a separate character article first for a character that only appears in 1 work is putting the cart before the horse. I therefore now favor '''merge'''ing the (now much improved) Ash (Alien) into Alien (film). As for the other articles, however, I still strongly endorse deletion as I do not see evidence that they could be similarly expanded. The sources that have been added, while excellent, cover the entire film , and therefore would be better applied to the article about the film as a whole. Precedent, if I'm not mistaken, has shown that fictional characters that only appear in a single work should be covered in the article about the work, unless/until the coverage becomes extensive enough that a |summary style split seems like a good idea. Like I said, cart before the horse. The sources added would be a huge improvement to Alien (film), and would contribute to better coverage of the topic as a whole
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)