Haytham Kenway: So, starting with WP:BEFORE , the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV .  We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section.  First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review , G4t7 dead source, [15] [16] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content , IGN listicle with trivia content , another IGN's listicle , listicle with a short content , dualshockers' listicle with trivia content , Gamepro's listicle , Gamerevolution's listicle with short content , just a short interview , Comicbook source isn't reception at all , Heavy source contains only trivia quote content , while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character .  Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG ; and has no SIGCOV at all.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 06:43, 15 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!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly oppose .  The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed.  Nothing has changed since then.  Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless.  The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others.  Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability.  DasallmächtigeJ ( talk ) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG .  This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources.   🍕 Boneless Pizza!  🍕 ( 🔔 ) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD?  It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason.  In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid.  Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability.  Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception.  While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was wondering why I couldn’t find it and after some digging I remembered it wasn’t even nominated for deletion.  A user simply turned it into a redirect without seeking consensus first.  The issue was resolved on my talk page, where the discussion can still be found here .  DasallmächtigeJ ( talk ) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring , this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs ) 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, I'd argue it's primary since it's an interview with a person directly affiliated with the development of the game and the character in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters . Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - his standalone notability is dubious and there's a clear and obvious WP:ATD to target him to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge a lot of the reception is trivial, and while one could argue it helps re-examine the series antagonists it doesn't have much substance beyond that and even then it's shaky. Importance outside the parent work just isn't indicated.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 10:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More specific commentary on the sourcing situation would be helpful in attaining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - Discounting the primary sources and sources that are just trivial coverage, the sources currently in the article are largely reviews or coverage of Assassin's Creed 3 or the series as a whole, that just discuss Haytham as part of that larger review/discussion. These kinds of sources lend themselves much better for the subject to be discussed in a broader topic, in this case the character list, than spun out into a separate article. Searches are bringing up more of the same - smaller amounts of coverage as part of the broader discussion of the game and its plot as a whole. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Rorshacma. These are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character when discussing the game. That reflects how this should be covered on Wikipedia, by mentioning the character in the main game article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Lee Vilenski. Spy-cicle💥 Talk ? 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This looks likely to merge, but even if it does merge, it should be a "generous" merge that keeps most of the content.  This is for sure a borderline case but the GamesRadar article linked above, while not having tons of content on Haytham, establishes him as an important character as far as AC3 is concerned, and AC3 sold a zillion copies.  Yes, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED , I saved the link, but I think that it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness in a case like this where we know this character is a big deal and the game is a big deal and the bigness of the deals are linked. SnowFire ( talk ) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel this argument is very much arguing that notability is inherited from AC3. Just because Kenway's important to AC3 doesn't mean he's important overall. An equivalent argument to this would be arguing that something like Zamazenta is instantly notable because it's an important part of Pokemon Shield , which sold a lot of copies, despite the fact Zamazenta has absolutely no claim to notability. I do agree that this should be a decently large merge, given most of the relevant content in this article isn't at the list entry. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided between those editors advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge. I find the Merge argument stronger but maybe those who believe it should be Kept can make a better argument about the sources being adequate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:04, 29 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: merge