Talk:List of Resident Evil characters

Edward Ashford

There is no information whatsoever in this character, i can`t find a link that take me to his bio. Where it is? Zidane tribal 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why no hacked RE5 info?

It has been confirmed from the same people that hacked teh RE4 demo that Jill will be a boss twice. All the info on teh RE4 hack turned out correct.Capcom has also been trying to take down sites with the info out there. basic point is, Jill at the very least is alive....ish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.219.110 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's not up on the site is most likely because we don't actually know what role she plays. Sounds like a boss battle, yes, but until we get more information we shouldn't be throwing rumors up, let's wait until we have more information.

Major recurring characters section

Should this section only include main/playable characters, instead of every cahracter that has been featured in at least two games? I mean is Chris Redfield would definalely be considered a main charcter, but I dont think that Kenneth J. Sullivan and many others should be on this list/--Mmmundo (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think so. From what I can see at least half of the characters in the list are there only because of a reappearance in Umbrella Chronicles, and even then 90% of those are just mentioned in a file. I hardly consider that major. Woodrow Buzard (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

　

• This article is titled "list of characters in Resident Evil 2", it should be thorough, exhaustive, and comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.179.6 (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ark Thompson

Who the f**k deleted this?!I need f*****g research for my stories you f*****g douche(Who ever did it)

Ark Thompson is still listed here. There's probably more information at Resident Evil: Survivor. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 01:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion for RE article organization

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games regarding the status of individual character articles and a proliferation of articles dealing with RE fiction. Please join in if you are interested. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Barry Burton

The last line in the description for Barry Burton is said twice. This should be fixed. Chosen One 41 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wehrmacht007 keep reverting to an inferior version of the article which contains such errors, and this will not be rectified until he stops edit warring.Mr T (Based) (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Among other things, this article needs some references. There are already some pre-existing references on the RE:UC plot summary section, which can be copied and placed in this article. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  09:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Claire Redfield source

When unprotected please note that there is a section heading titled "Claire Redfield" in in "Resident Evil 5: Terror in the Sun," GameInformer 182 (June 2008): 65 that can and should be used to further expand and reference that section of this article. The section of the Game Informer article notes that "she looks just like previous character models of Claire..." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Voice actors

I think it would be a good idea to include mention of the voice cast somewhere, as the pages about the individual games don't have it. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Organization

This 'list' has experienced a lot of growth over the past week. This page's size on December 24th was around 36,000 bytes, and has now (December 31st) expanded to roughly 50,000 bytes. Much of this can be attributed to recent character additions, which seemingly borrow content from related articles, ex Characters in Resident Evil Code: Veronica, Characters in Resident Evil 2, and Resident Evil 4. It is seemingly pointless to have the exact same information in two places. For example, the HUNK section is almost identical, if not exactly the same, to its corresponding section in the RE2 Characters section. Similar claims can be made about the Jack Krauser, Steve Burnside, Luis Sera sections.

This is not an issue of plagiarism or a dispute whether which page featured the content first, but rather a discussion aimed towards determining how we should allocate the information on this page and its related articles. My suggestion would be to move a majority of the content on this page to its respected page, so this page may be an actual list (Wikipedia:Lists). Or perhaps create an article called, “Recurring characters in Resident Evil”, which can deal with main characters in the series, who have made multiple appearances, ex Chris and Claire Redfield, Wesker, Ada, and Leon. Input, Feedback, Brraaains? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  12:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wesker

Wesker has become the main villain of the series, shouldn't he get his own page now?68.5.246.171 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But he's dead now so he's no longer the main villain, well not until the creator decides to bring him back again which is a possibility but from the looks of things Wesker is dead and won't be coming back. So he's not really the main villain anymore. Earisu ♥|^Talk 10:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It wont matter if they actually do reboot the series. In which case he will pretty much be the main antagonist of this continuity. --68.8.120.25 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess you actually have a point, thinking of it like that. But to get there own page they need lots of real-world info that can be built upon (as mentioned below when I asked why Chris hasn't got his own page). If some people got together and worked on a sandbox page to see if they can come up with something he might get his own page. I'm not really much of a Wiki expert though. Earisu ♥|^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

He used to have his own page but it was merged without discussion. He certainly should have his own page now. And no, there is no way to prove that he died. 99.33.95.2 (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're having difficulty taking in the fact that a fictional character is dead, but he IS dead unless Capcom says so. The rockets went straight through his head, he mutated when using Uroboros which means he wasn't compatible with it and he was sinking into boiling hot lava AND he was driven with rage to kill Chris and didn't seem cool and collected like usual. Sorry to dash your dreams but he's dead unless Capcom says otherwise. There is no proof that he is alive, unless you want to argue that "the rockets passed over his head" or "he was just bathing in the volcano" or "uroboros wasn't mutated in him, he was just playing around" or "he was acting when he was pissed off at Chris". I think proving he's alive is a lot more difficult, I'm sorry. :] Earisu ♥|^Talk 07:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I also have to say, I'm quite disgusted that you stole the Albert Wesker Page from the Resident Evil Wikia and just pasted it as a new page, trying to claim it as your own. Did you even read my comment before yours on how Wesker could get his own page? No, you just stole a page from another Wiki. I said you need REAL WOrLD INFO for them to have a page, not a huge backstory of their life in canon. Not only that but Wikia pages don't follow Wiki rules and add speculation and misleading facts without sources to back them up, just look at the Ada Wong page they have.

Still, plagiarism is low, really low. Earisu ♥|^Talk 09:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Listen to this. Im pissed that a fictional character is dead. Call me crazy, but after all the stuff you seen Wesker put up with in the series, i feel like rockets and lava just is not enough to take him down. Did you play that RE5? At one point you have to shoot him like 5 times with a rocket launcher just to proceed in the game. I doubt a little lava would end his life. Uroboros or whatever it is obviously loved that guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.172.232 (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Capcom producers comfirmed a while back at a convention that Wekser IS in fact dead for good and that there was "no way he could ever come back after that". I don't remember which one, either E3 or Comic-Con, but either way, it doesn't matter much. He's dead. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BionicExperiment (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sheva Alomar

Why is she listed as a secondary character? She's a pretty important main character of RE5 so shouldn't she be listed as such? Also her file (when unlocked) delves into her past so she's not just a secondary character with no background story. Earisu ♥|^Talk 10:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To add, would anyone object to adding her under "Main Characters"? It seems silly that she would be put under "Secondary Characters" when she is a main character and is playable. I just want to ask before making such a change. Earisu ♥|^Talk 20:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think that Billy from Resident Evil 0, being a main protaginist of RE0 should be in the main character section, it seemed odd for me to have to look for him. I think he's got enough information, and was important enough for the prequel to be a main character, just as much as Rebecca Chambers. 71.104.191.156 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the main Characters section is/supposed reserved for characters who have made multiple appearances with the series, and possess an important role in the story arch. I am not sure why Chambers was added, when she only makes two canonical appearances (RE0 and REmake). I think I tried to bring up this issue earlier, but... yeah :(. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense, main characters are one who are well known to the Series (ie. Chris, Jill and Leon). I would say Leon has only appeared in two games but he appears in the Gameboy Game with Barry right? I guess I'll leave Sheva where she is. :] Earisu (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note....the tattoo on sheva's left shoulder says "Shujaa" which means "Brave" or "The brave one" in arabic, you should add that to her section if you like. (this is my first contribution to wikipedia and i really hope to help make this site even bigger and better than it already is, thanks)...Spidy09 (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Redfield

I've noticed Jill has her own page but why doesn't Chris have one? I'm just curious because Chris has been in a lot of games and now he's been in RE5 there's more information about him. Surely he deserves his own page now? Earisu ♥|^Talk 10:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on how much real-world info we can find on Chris' character (ex, character design, influence, reception, merchandise, ect) Chris used to have his own article, but it was merged here since it was only composed of in-universe information from the RE series. The Jill Valentine article was recreated because Kung Fu Man was able to successfully research and rewrite the Valentine article so it could stand by itself. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see! Well if/when real world info about him comes to light maybe he can have his own page again. Earisu ♥|^Talk 18:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Article for Albert Wesker

He is the only character to appear or be directly referenced in every game in a franchise that has sold 35 million games. He was also named as one of the greatest villains of all time. I think he certainly exceeds the threshold to have his own article. 99.33.95.2 (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see why you felt the need to make a new discussion on this when it's already being discussed above. Earisu ♥|^Talk 07:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What I will say, just like the tens of thousands of retired athletes, wrestlers, fiction characters in television shows.... etc etc, that They could be inactive, retired, deceased, or even unknown status and there is main articles about that said people.

The only difference being a person vs. fiction. But if you give a character that is considered living a main article, I would believe a protagonist whom is considered one of the most influential and polarizing character in regards to this series should get his article. By looking at this article in it's current form, Jill is the only one who has a main article and the last game she is considered a central character is RE: Nemesis, MAYBE the Umbrella Chronicles but then that gives every other character that same right.

Main Character Worth list....

Chris Redfield Claire Redfield Leon Kennedy Albert Wesker Ada Wong (stretch but still was playable and influence) Carlos Olveira (again a stretch as we have not seen him since Nemesis)

The rest have been included in multiple appearances in the series' canon storyline.BlackScreaminMachine (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not about worth though, it's about what real world information you can find out about them. Earisu ♥]]|^Talk

"Real-World" information about fictional characters, which at that point I understand since info would be relative to what the character did in the story and unless if released by parent company, canon information, then most would consider the page bland. But considering Wiki allows this for television show characters, then there is precedence. There is a fine line between an encyclopedia and a fanboy website. BlackScreaminMachine (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fate of Rebecca Chambers

Hello. I changed the final line for the section of Rebecca Chambers from 'Her fate after the events of Resident Evil is currently unknown' to 'Her fate after the events of the original Resident Evil is not explored in any videogame of the franchise, but she is given starring roles in S.D. Perry's second and fourth novels: Resident Evil: Caliban Cove and Resident Evil: Underworld.'

It has been reverted but I believe this information should be re-included somehow since those novels, althoug its canonicity can be debated, do explore to great extent the experiences of the character after the Mansion Spencer incident. And she is given starring roles in both, as it is explained in their respective articles. 195.57.9.153 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge with other Resident Evil character lists

It is far too much to have nine separate lists about one media franchise's fictional characters who are not individually notable. The eight other lists should be compressed and merged here. Neelix (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support --Explodicle (T/C) 01:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support —Jack Merridew 09:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. The merge is complete. Work still needs to be done on compressing the list, removing excessive plot summary, and adding citations. Neelix (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There is too much information to fit on one page. Best to keep it as two separate articles. Wikipedia is not paper, it isn't runing out of space. And any merge would probably end up being deletion in stages anyway. Dream Focus 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as this particular franchise's characters are individually notable due to multiple appearances in games re-released multiple times on various major platforms and most wikipedically due to reliable secondary sources on development and reception used to source out of universe information. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  This merger was a cluster fuck - we actually lost references, sourced material, and critical commentary, while picking up more fancruft. I'd like to point out that Characters in Resident Evil 4 had almost as many references and real-world commentary than this entire article (yes, I'm being partially facetious). It's not uncommon video game franchises to have multiple articles for characters; see the character articles for Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda, Metal Gear Solid, or StarCraft. Second, I do not see why this merger was conducted with the only insight of two people over the course of less than a week - at least have the courtesy to address the top contributors of the page or wait for more users who spent a lot of time working on some of those pages to give insight. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Waiting five days is standard for merge discussions. When all the voices are in support at that time, it would be idleness not to act on the merge suggestion. In any case, the topic has not be closed to discussion, nor is the current state of the list set in stone; in fact, my last comment in this discussion stated as much. The loss of references in Characters in Resident Evil 4 mentioned by StarScream1007 are almost entirely cut-and-paste edits from the main Resident Evil 4 article; if any of them should be duplicated here, feel free to add them. With respect to Dream Focus's comment: which two separate pages are you referring to? If we were to have two lists rather than one, in what way would you divide them? Neelix (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The references were actually taken from the RE4 Character article and added into the main RE4 article by some random user who felt the RE4 should be bloated up (Compare the previous versions of the article from the summer of 2008). I felt the RE4 Character article had potential to someday reach GA level status. I feel that we should use the same steps to recreate the character articles on a case-to-case basis pending the amount of real world information we can muster up. The same process was used to recreate and dramitcally improve the Nemesis, Chris Redfeild, and Jill Valentine articles. Once again, its not taboo on Wikipedia to have multiple character articles for some games; see [1]. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since you're claiming that these characters are individually notable due to reliable secondary sources on development and reception, would you please add these sources as citations? I've had great difficulty finding acceptable creature sources since we discussed it in December. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's probably going to come down to recreating the character articles in sandboxes, and slowly buffing them up before they can be restored. It's happened before on similar articles. Finding sources is not an issue - look at the previous RE articles I referenced, which were rebuilt from scratch. The main problem is compiling all the data together and making something that is encyclopedic. It's just going to take a great deal of time and reorganization, which should have been addressed two years ago. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: per nom. Also per WP:Merge, the waiting period is 5 days. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Where does WP:Merge say that? I can't find it. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that the current 133 kB is above the suggested 100 kB in WP:SPLIT - we should either trim out the garbage by deleting entries which lack real-world context or split (provided someone agrees to add real-world context within a month or so). --Explodicle (T/C) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Then split it back into two articles, one listing characters, the other listing creatures. That makes more sense. Also, the main contributors to the article should've been contacted for the discussion. You were one of the ones who tried to eliminate it in the last AFD, and failed. The edit history shows you then tried to delete most of the article [2] in November. Why so determined to destroy? Whatever information is actually merged over here, will probably be deleted in time anyway. Best to keep it in its original spot. Dream Focus 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Any interested contributors were notified by their watchlists - contacting specific people is not standard procedure. I'd appreciate it if we could discuss the content instead of discussing me. Would you be willing to compromise? My problem (and presumably Jack, Ryan, and Neelix's) is with creatures/characters that don't have any specific development/reception sources. If you or A Nobody would agree to add those sources by July, I'll agree to splitting it as you suggest in the meantime. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some things already had sources for them. [3] The primary source is the only source you need for a list article anyway. — Dream Focus (04:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)

The entries that already have reception/development coverage are fine, my issue is with the entries which lack this (for example, Wasps). I'm willing to compromise on primary sources (instead of the typical secondary sources) for this, but these should at least use inline citations. Does this sound fair to you? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And the average Wikipedia user has far too many things on their watchlist to notice every single thing. That's why I didn't see it right away. I'm going to contact them now for their input. In the meantime, don't do the redirect again. Wait until a proper discussion is had and consensus is formed. Dream Focus 04:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Notifying users like that is votestacking. Please use the standard merge/split templates in the future. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not vote stacking, its me explaining there is now a merge discussion for an article they had contributed significantly to, including the guy who first created it way back in 2005. Does anyone have an automatic way to do that? I only managed to find four people total in the edit history. Anything involving eliminating an article, should be done with the knowledge of those who worked on it. Dream Focus 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• This article has been around since December 15, 2005[4]. There is no policy violation here. There is no reason to try to destroy it. Some people don't like list articles of this type, and are rampaging around, attacking one after the other, trying to destroy them. Does it help the Wikipedia in any possible way to eliminate something like this? Other than you simply not liking it, is there any reason to delete it? This isn't a game guide, since it isn't telling people where to find the lost treasure, what attacks to use, what loot you get from where, what order to complete a quest in, etc. It is simply a list article, of perfectly valid Wikipedia content. Anyone who is interested in learning more about this successful series, can read what sort of creatures are in it, and get a detailed and complete list. The monsters are a key component to what make these sorts of games successful, and thus the information should be recorded. And every item on the list does need anything other than the primary source to verify it exist and is accurate. Dream Focus 04:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge. No good reason to have separate list articles for the same franchise, much better to catalogue and collect them in one place. Verbal chat 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So you want to destroy a list article, simply because you don't believe any franchise should have more than one? Dream Focus 19:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"So you want to destroy a list article" No. "you don't believe any franchise should have more than one" Again, no. Verbal chat 19:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Chambers merge

Given the lack of content in the article and the fact it can be summarized enough here, negating the need of a spinout at all, I'd like to suggest a straight-up merge of the article's entire material back into here, until enough proper reception can be found to warrant a spinout at a later time if possible. As it stands there's just not enough meat.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support, of course; an excellent proposal. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Never should have been spun-out. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There is enough valid information to fill its own article. I oppose deleting the article, and putting just a small token amount of information from it into this list article. Dream Focus 06:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • One sentence of reception is so far from "enough". And you're already making bad faith assumptions that any merge would "delete most of the content"? You were the first person to suggest deletion as an option. Regardless, spinning this article out from the list is completely unnecessary given the content. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I am not suggesting deletion anywhere, just pointing that there is no possible way to copy that much information over, the article being too large. So you'd end up deleting more than half of its current content. Dream Focus 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Dream Focus has expressed a concern in his user page that merger is merely an euphemism for deletion in Wikipedia. Although I have my own comments as to how correct it is, I believe a good faith merger would satisfy him. Fleet Command (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I was referring to the actions of certain people where they'd eliminate articles they didn't like, by replacing them with a redirect, without any discussion at all, and claim it was "merged" even when it wasn't(that not what is happening here of course, since we have a discussion first), as well as the times I have listed specific examples of(on user page) when they agreed to merge the information over, then erased everything but one sentence claiming it was "merged". Dream Focus 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Dream, cool your jets. Nobody said anything about deleting the article in any way. If you paid attention to the proposal it states to merge the content of the article as a whole. About the only thing getting nixed there is the lead, infobox and possibly any OR that can be tidied along the way. You should really start trying to assume some good faith here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
          • The article is 6,875 bytes now, and looking at it, I don't see how you'd make it fit, or more importantly, why? No reason not to have it on its own as a valid content fork. Dream Focus 12:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Lists have no size limits, and "it's too big already" is a poor argument to begin with. A little over ten more sentences is not going to suddenly break this article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
              • WP:SIZERULE applies less strongly to lists, but IMHO we should still shy away from making a huge list longer. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
                • Actually there was a discussion on WT:VG on the subject where it was decided to take a more related approach to lists and size, especially in lieu of the Pokemon lists.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Seems to me a right thing to do. Fleet Command (talk) 08:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as sufficiently verifiable and notable to justify a separate article (playable character with multiple appearances from Resident Evil The Umbrella Chronicles to Resident Evil 5 now. Just continue to improve it further. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Playable in one or one hundred games is far beyond being notable; what matters is reception, which Rebecca has only one piece of. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Not anymore! :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The Examiner is pretty much a blog (and not a newspaper like your reference (accidentally?) misrepresented it as. And the IGN reference was very weak as best, not actual reception but more a "hey you've got these guys too!" post on Schedeen's part. You'll have to dig deeper.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I am happy to keep an eye out for more, but these sources sufficiently meet our standards for justifying a stand alone article. I would like to see the article improved further, but I am not able to be convinced that it does not meet the requirements for a stand alone article due to my knowledge of the franchise. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Like what's been argued, it's only a very small number of references related to creation or reception. The fact of the matter is that it does not need to be separate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
            • I am not persuaded that there is any need for it not to be separate. Indeed, we provide our readers with a bit more detail about a major character by having it separate than simply lumping up a summary in a character list. Her article need not be as big as Mario's article to not be a stand alone article, just as an article on Napoleon II should not be as long as one on Napoleon I. So long as we have some development and reception information, even if just a couple of sentences, then I do not see any reason not to have the stand alone article containing it. Now, I absolutely do not think every character from this franchise should have a separate article. For example, I have no plans for calling for a spinout of something like List_of_Resident_Evil_characters#Dan_DeChant and you would be right to give me a hard time if I did. Rebecca, however, is one of maybe a dozen or so characters from this incredibly significance franchise who does have realstic potential for further expansion of a stand alone article and who is important enough for those who study women in video games to provide them with a summary of her development, role in the story, and reception. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
              • Number of appearances in a series has nothing to do with importance. In-universe importance? Yes. Real world importance? No. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
                • Number of appearances has everything to do with real world importance, i.e. as a result of multiple appearances many more people in the real world will be familiar with the character and especially when those appearances extend beyond the games into toys as well that allow people to hold a real world replica of the character, something that cannot be said of the overwhelming majority of characters. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
                  • WP:N does not at any point suggest that number of appearances has any weight. What does it tell us? It tells us "Rebecca Chambers is important to Resident Evil". It's called synthesis - "because she's made so many appearances in a popular series, she must be a popular character in the real world". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
                    • I tend to go by WP:SENSE more so than the always disupted ever changing WP:N. And per common sense, number of appearances tells me that she is important to not just Resident Evil, but the millions of people who have step into her shoes in Resident Evil Zero, Resident Evil the Umbrella Chronicles, and Resident Evil 5. We experience and relate to a character we play as, sympathizing with them, if not almost becoming them as an actor playing role. That can of experience is important to the players of the game and not just the game itself. It is not synthesis when we can verify these appearances in previews and reviews of the games. She's a popular character in the real world, because she has made a couple top ten lists and in two other places writers on such sites as IGN devote sentences expressing their hopes that she will appear in Resident Evil 6, for example. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - it passes WP:N and this list is still pretty big. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support no independent RS establishing real world notability independent of the games and WP:ILIKEIT and improbable synthesis. Verbal chat 18:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Please remember to make honest posts as independent reliable sources have been presented that establish real world notability independent of the game. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to merge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Please remember not to present straw men, and not to make untrue statements such as "independent reliable sources have been presented that establish real world notability independent of teh(sic) game". Verbal chat 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I encourage you to focus on discussions for which you have some knowledge as no with any legitimate knowledge of the subject would say falsely claim that independent reliable sources do not exist for this unquestionably notable character. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)