Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

The result was no consensus‎. There was a clear consensus against deletion, but views were more or less evenly split between Keep and Redirect. And while Redirect can be picked as an alternative to deletion even in the absence of consensus to redirect, it cannot be picked as an alternative to keeping without consensus to do so. Debate between leaving the content as a standalone article, redirecting or merging can continue editorially, and doesn't require AfD. Owen× ☎ 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Aiden Pearce

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Aiden Pearce (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, after doing WP:BEFORE; I don't see any SIGCOV for this character at all and it mostly relies on game reviews at reception. 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

  • 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 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]( [8]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

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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aiden_Pearce&oldid=1230992596"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE