Heather Mason: Ref 26 and 27 might be helpful, but isn't enough to pull WP:GNG around somehow.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 11:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of the Silent Hill series#Heather Mason .  I don't see any evidence of WP:SIGCOV at all.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] There are other scholarly sources that seemed to discuss Heather that I don't seem to be able to access, but these six sources cover Heather in a significant fashion.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 16:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: [9] This source goes over the character's recent resurgance on Tik Tock, and I believe Variety is a high profile source to count as a SIGCOV per Wikipedia's rules.  There's also this piece from Collider that goes into the character from 2021 [10] , but I don't know if Collider meets the SIGCOV guidelines.  Transformers03 ( talk ) 08:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, but both the sources you cited were unreliable but I think the article will survive because of the discovered sources above.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 13:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not true, Vulture is a reliable source, and Collider is not listed as unreliable on either here or WP:RSP .  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wrote down Variety, but I meant Vulture, and Cukie Gherkin is right.  Vulture has been used multiple times as a reliable source for film and television, and is listed as reliable source on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources Wikipedia page.  Vulture is listed reliable as as a subsidiary of the New York magazine.  The Vulture piece is a real commentary about the subject within a modern context, showcasing the character is still relevant.  Transformers03 ( talk ) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've looked through the presented sources and am still unconvinced.  It's essentially a few paragraphs of real commentary mixed with a lot of fluff - there is no slam-dunk evidence that the character list would be too small to hold all the commentary about her, which is what the argument must be here.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what your point is here.  A few paragraphs of significant commentary isn't discounted by the presence of fluff around it.  It just seems like you admitted that there's significant coverage of Heather to me!  As WP:GNG notes, the article itself doesn't have to be about the subject for it to constitute as sigcov.  Also, "this character could fit into a list" isn't an argument either, as the question of if a character could have an article is weighed more on the character's individual notability than the character's ability to work in a list.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 15:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To make a comparison, it was argued on the World of Ruin talk page that the subject, even if notable, could work better as part of the FF6 article.  In that case, there is an argument to be made that the subject actively works better as part of the FF6 article, not just that it could be covered.  Unless you've changed your mind on that article, I would contend "it could work in its main article" applies more there than it does here.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 17:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pointing to an editor's other, totally unrelated article to impugn them is an argument to the person .  You are essentially accusing me of bad faith when there is no evidence that is the case.  AfD is a harsh enough environment without other editors insinuating you lack the credentials to ever participate there.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I made the point that I find it difficult to understand the standard you are applying based on previous discussions, which I think is a perfectly valid thing to bring up.  My argument is that I cannot understand the rationale behind your argument or why you're making it.  As you yourself noted, Heather has real commentary, so I legitimately have no idea what your objection is.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 13:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I usually consider the nature of the commentary, whether it is done as an aside to a larger topic or as part of something largely focused on the topic in question.  If there were a couple other articles like the Vulture one I would probably think it was weakly meriting an article, but I am seeing larger discussions about the plot of Silent Hill 3 in which Heather is brought up in passing alongside various other characters who are given equal billing (thus making it better for a character article reception discussion), and listicles.  Unless some really good alternative sources come up I won't be swayed on this, but that's my opinion and people are free to dissent.  I'm not gonna argue if everyone else thinks otherwise.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: useful sources discovered.  The dogcat ( talk ) 17:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The sources linked by Cukie Gherkin and Transformers03—digital magazines like Vulture and Vice , the horror media network Bloody Disgusting , and the Changing Views – Worlds in Play conference proceeding—are what convince me of notability.  I don't consider myself familiar enough with Resident Evil Silent Hill to give this article the work I think it does need, but I think we can keep it around to let that happen.  P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 06:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [Correction posted P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) ] [ reply ] Correction.  Silent Hill , not Resident Evil .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 06:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Quite right!  Sorry about that slip of the keyboard.  P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep