Aiden Pearce : Detailed issue has been shared at the article's talk page already by other user.  I'll suggest it by merging/redirecting it into Watch Dogs (video game) .  🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Video games .   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 01:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment have you tried merging this into a Characters of Watch Dogs article?  Jclemens ( talk ) 03:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Watch Dogs (video game) exist.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An article for the game itself existing doesn't disqualify the idea of a characters list.  Now whether enough coverage for the other characters exists or not is a different story.  λ Negative MP1 15:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This wouldn't be a bad idea, but looking at the article of the first game, it looks like Watch_Dogs characters (main or side) are not particularly beloved by critics.  I can't even find any specific characters mentioned in that GA outside of its uncited plot section, which really suggests to me that characters of this franchise are not subject to much analysis.  I have not done a dive for sources though; if you can find any sources specifically about Watch_Dogs characters, that would be interesting.  It seems like a difficult project either way.  ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There is news sources showing wider coverage, some of which have been provided on the talk page and are in the process of being incorporated into the article.  This is by no means the least notable of it's kind so a deletion discussion so soon seems like a rash decision.   This can be, at worst, made into a characters of Watch Dogs article like Jclemens has already suggested.  TheBritinator ( talk ) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was the one who brought those sources to the talk page, and those aren't WP:SIGCOV , but I understand that you're still quite new to WP:VG 's notability.  This is not like other fictional characters; when there are reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom.  Not seeing any significant coverage here, and the article is primarily sourced entirely to reviews.  Not showing independent notability from the subject.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 12:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect – If we disregard GameRant for Notability determinitation (which I believe we should), the only reliable source focused specifically on the character listed here is The Washington Post .  Because Aiden Pierce is the lead character of the Watch_Dogs franchise, I think it would be easy to have a complete description of the character there without running into undue weight issues.  Criticism of Pierce is criticism of Watch_Dogs as a whole, hence why most of the reliable sources used in this article are full-game reviews.  The Appearances section largely recounts the plot of the games (at length, using almost exclusively primary sources, ugh), which also shows the strong overlap.  ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral after more sources have been dug up.  ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Maplestrip.  Someone can always expand on the main character's backstory and reception at the main game article.  There isn't so much good coverage that it meets WP:SIGCOV .  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But his hat is so iconic !  Redirect per Mable.  None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character, but rather discuss him in the context of a review of the game as a whole.  No development info.  Axem Titanium ( talk ) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Per nom - the reception is largely trivial mentions pulled from reviews, rather than discussing him alone as a character.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Though most above are saying that the article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV , I found a few articles on the character on numerous sources [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] ( [43] small section) and theres this short guide from IGN which I'm not sure counts and the GiantBomb one looks like an actual review.  MK at your service.  08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For reference, see Nilin (Remember Me) , the character's reception mostly uses the game's reviews, and the appearances section uses lines from the game to reference it.  Some articles do exist on the character, which are mentioned in the concept and development section.  MK at your service.  08:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not really an argument; Nilin could be notable after digging per WP:BEFORE and not because of that game reviews.  Comparing other articles isn't helpful.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 08:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure why are you pulling out more game reviews, plot content-like sources, and unreliable sources/wiki/game guide articles.  🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 08:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's go through these.  (1) Game Industry News is currently listed as non-conclusive, and Michael Blaker does not seem particularly experienced.  Article praises the character and repeats that he gets "reintroduced" in this novel, but there's nothing else here.  (2) ScreenRant I would not count for WP:N.  (3) IGN , this looks like a really good one!  (4) Tassi on Forbes is a senior contributor, which I think is a good sign?  This article is actually about something.  (5) GameInformer review with a focus on what Pearce represents and such.  (6) Petrick Kepleck ( GiantBomb ), despite looking like a wiki editor, is indeed a proper reporter .  Proper reception and emotional significance on Aiden.  (7) NME , I have to be wondering if all this stuff is just part of Watch_Dogs: Legion reception specifically.  There's some stuff here but not much.  (8) Yahoo review that does not add to WP:N.  All-inall, still zero development information, which makes me hesitant, but there's a lot more here.  Shame none of it was used.  ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IGN is more like a game-guide content;but there's no need to expound more since its not gonna survive AfD.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 07:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IGN does both, and it's important to separate the articles from the gameguides from the user-generated stuff.  Joe Skrebels seems to have been a professional news editor at IGN .  Confusingly, when I open this article, it redirects me to a Dutch translation with a different author.  Annoying, but the effort of translation may suggest that IGN considers this a good article.  ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I think I worded it incorrectly oops.  I mean't the IGN that was brought up here as a sourcd not IGN in General is just making game guide content.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Jumping in here, but Forbes contributors like Tassi are generally recommended not to use as Forbes doesn't apply editorial oversight to their works.  Tassi also has some infamy in journalistic circles which doesn't help. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 12:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Maplestrip. The above also isn't convincing me, given it's mainly reviews and valnet. And normally I like Valnet but you need some meat to go with it.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Most redirect ! votes seem to be at least partially based on None of the reliable sources are focused solely on the character .  That, however, is explicitely not required to establish notability according to WP:SIGCOV : Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.  Of course something meaningful and fitting for an encyclopedia on the article's subject still needs to be contained in those secondary sources with a different main topic like e.g. the game as a whole.  Daranios ( talk ) 15:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We already have a reasonable reception section without regress to Valnet sources, thus the article in its current form already fullfills WP:WHYN and therefore WP:N , even though the plot probably needs trimming to balance.  In addition we have the Vice web article , which incidentally does have Aiden Pearce as its main topic, and more secondary sources have been listed and sorted above.  Again, some of the do have the character as the main topic.  In addition, there's a brief paragraph of commentary on Aiden Pearce in this academic publication .  Daranios ( talk ) 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Vice is the only situational source that could be a bit decent.  However, I don't think we already have a "reasonable reception section" because of article being bloated with game reviews and plenty of game-guide content?   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 18:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] About being bloated, I guess we agree that the plot summary content currently is not balanced with the reception section.  But that's a problem that can be solved by normal editing and is therefore not a reason for deletion.  And we do have a reception section which in my view does not consist of game-guide content.  The fact that the sources making up the reception section are mostly game reviews does not invalidate their use, as the content which has been taken from them here is direct commentary on the character, i.e. the topic of the article.  Daranios ( talk ) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: One problem with "Per X " ! votes is that if X changes her opinion mid-discussion, as happened here, those Per X ! votes become ambiguous or ill-defined.  Please stick to substantive arguments.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My own ! vote has moved to "neutral" after more sources were dug up, but I still think the sources are weak.  I would like to know if @ Shooterwalker : and @ Axem Titanium : still think so too, as per the relisting comment.  ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm willing to adjust my vote to neutral , with a chance to revisit this discussion in the future.  I am still not sure if there is WP:SIGCOV but I admit there are some improvements, which I hope will continue.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm still staying by redirect as my vote.  I feel the subject matter on its own is too weak, and there's really nothing here that can't be discussed in the body of the main article.  While there are some characters with single game appearances, one needs to consider if what's being said illustrates them separate of that work or not, and that's not being indicated here. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am also sticking to redirect here, the provided sources don't convince me that the article passes GNG.  The best sources here are Giant Bomb and Vice, and that isn't really sufficient.  Plus, most of the commentary is just "Aiden Pearce is bad" which doesn't offer much nuance you can't put in the main game's reception.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but pretty marginal case I will concede.  I managed to find these sources which I think could be incorpated to just about scrap GNG: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] .  Spy-cicle💥 Talk ?  22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You almost brought the same sources that was apready provided above.  The first source is unreliable.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 00:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I struck my first source.  Collectively, all the sources presented on this AfD page, in my opinion, provide enough coverage to meet GNG.  Spy-cicle💥 Talk ?  17:32, 25 June 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: no consensus