The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
Like Vaggie, this article also relies mostly about their relationship. But, despite that, it seems like this [1] is the only good source, The Mary Sue source that has already cited is quite useful but isn't a WP:SIGCOV, while the rest are just passing mentions from film reviews. WP:BEFORE, most of the sources were from the film reviews and Charlie was just a passing mention and it doesn't really discuss as a character at all. Fails WP:GNG. 22:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the OP and would argue that on the reception section ALONE, it counts as notable, and should be kept. It is inevitable it will be mentioned in film reviews, but I do not see that as hurting notability. I vote keep. Historyday01 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. I am saying that there is enough reliable sources to justify it being kept. The fact that you are NOT considering alternatives to deletion and did NOT even start a discussion on the talk page of the article you have nominated, to address some of these issues, says everything to me. Deletion is not an alternative to what can be solved through editing. If you wanted to, you could have done more research to make the article better, but you did not. Historyday01 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I was only saying that alternatives to deletion should have been considered. In any case, I hope more people weigh in on this discussion. Update: I am presently posting about this on related projects so as to get more eyes on this discussion, as we are are only two users and there should be more eyes on this AfD so there can be an informed decision that benefits all parties.--Historyday01 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you disagree, you actually need to build up your arguments better and find a possible source that could help the character pass WP:GNG. This is not a voting process. Also, it feels like after Historyday01 made an edit; after a minute later, this IP comes up immediately (looks like a sock). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. I'm not at all related to Historyday01. I tend to disagree with their editing process and hostility toward you. I am only weighing on this AfD which I recently came across. That is all.71.179.137.86 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in fighting this. I am striking my comments so the closing admin doesn't need to. I hope the "both of you" is applying to the OP as well.71.179.137.86 (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said there, can we please keep this civil without throwing around accusations? I am already trying to get more people to weigh in on this discussion by posting on related projects. Having both of us just go back-and-forth isn't doing anyone good. If I could go back in time, I'd have never commented in this discussion at all. Update: More people have commented, which is good. I am removing my previous line, as I don't think it does anyone good at this present time.Historyday01 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I get how the OP arrived at their perspective, I think their reasoning isn't quite in line with WP:SIGCOV. Per the guideline, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and its example for what constitutes a trivial mention is Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band: Walker makes no examination of the band itself, no history of its existence of analysis of its performance—it's simply trivia about Clinton. Meanwhile, the articles from entertainment/media journalism cited on this page that OP calls passing mentions do involve actual analysis of the character. The Mary Sue describes attributes of the character's personality and how that personality affects the show's narrative and reception (what makes you want to go back and watch all of Hazbin Hotel is Charlie), BELatina connects the character's multilingualism to Medrano's Latin American background (Medrano’s latinidad might shine through most clearly in particularly colorful streams of expletives in Spanish that Charlie lets loose), and CBR appraises the voice actor performance of the character (Erika Henningsen, as Charlie, did an exemplary job of voicing a person cheery by nature but brought down by the massive weight of responsibilities on her shoulder). And to clarify, these sentences aren't the sole mentions of the character in each source. The reviews aren't mentioning the character in one sentence or other like with the Three Blind Mice example; the reviews have paragraphs summarizing and/or examining the Charlie character. These don't seem like passing mentions on the level of Walker's trivial mention of Three Blind Mice. This falls more into the second clause of the sentence I quoted from WP:SIGCOV: it does not need to be the main topic of the source material for it to still be significant coverage. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Valnet sources like CBR doesn't contribute to GNG after checking WP:RSP. But, I would say the Mary sue source looks good now after rechecking it, thou I don't think Belatina is reliable. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said it much better than I could put it. The Mary Sue and CBR sources are ones I originally added on the Hazbin Hotel page as reviews, and I just carried them over after the page was moved into the mainspace earlier this year. I imagine that more articles will come out in the future, which will further cement the page. Historyday01 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hydrangeans analysis. Too bad about the IP who crossed-out their Keep comment, feeling welcome is a major part of the Wikipedia experience. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hydrangeans' arguments. She's correct in the assessment that mentions of Charlie in sources aren't simply trivial mentions. They do in fact analyze Charlie and aspects of her character. --Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:47, 28 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.
