Wikipedia:Notability (video game characters)

Video game characters follow the same general notability guideline as all other topics. This is an advice page that applies the general concept of notability to articles about video game characters, based on best practices from editors experienced with this topic.

GNG and individual characters

The general notability guideline (GNG) is as follows.

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Let's review this as it applies to video game characters.

Presumed

Having reliable sources, that are independent of the subject, and constitute significant coverage mean that a character is eligible for a stand-alone article, but does not mean that it is justified. Here are some things to think about when considering:

• What is best for the reader: When one creates a stand-alone character article, this takes the reader away from surrounding context that would be present if the character were discussed as a section within the game/franchise article, or a list of characters. It also means more clicking and navigating for the reader. Also, information may need to be repeated (for said context) that was in the other article, meaning more reading for the reader. Alternatively, a split may be necessary when discussing the character within another article may get long and begin to cause undue weight in the article.
• Amount of content: Sometimes there isn't enough "meat" for an article. Maybe the sources are repeating the same information as eachother. Maybe the sources are weak and don't go into enough detail. Maybe the character experienced a one-time surge of interest by sources because of some event or meme, and then never again. Maybe you have one really strong source and...nothing else. If you find yourself trying to stretch out the limited details in the sources available, consider that maybe the coverage is not as significant as you thought, and it may make more sense to discuss the character in a section in another article.
• Type of coverage: Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, and should be written in the context of the real world. If the sources mostly describe in-universe details without any analysis, commentary, or criticism, then there isn't any real world content to build an article.

Significant coverage

Sources should discuss the character directly and in-detail. The character does not need to be the main topic of a source, but discussion about the character should be significant.

Let's take some sources used in the Ada Wong article as an example

• Examples of significant coverage:
  • Chan, Harri (2023-04-20). "Resident Evil's Ada Wong goes head-to-head with sexpionage stereotypes". Polygon.

    Ada Wong is the subject of the article. The article discusses the character directly and in-detail. These are the best sources and make a strong case for notability.

  • Wehner, Mike (July 4, 2012). "The Great Resident Evil 2 Coverup". The Escapist.

    While the subject of the article is the plot of Resident Evil 2, the article contains passages that discuss the character and personality of Ada Wong at length, independent of Resident Evil 2.

• Examples of insignificant coverage:
  • "The Best 'Resident Evil' Heroes". Inverse. 2017-01-11.

    Typical listicle with only a trivial mention of Ada Wong. As a review of characters in the game, the characters are not treated with any significance independent of the game.

  • "Resident Evil 4 Review (PS2)". GameSpy. February 6, 2009.

    This is a review of Resident Evil 4. While Ada is mentioned a few times within the article, she is only discussed within the context of the game. The article does not discuss her, as a character independent of the game.

Regarding listicles

Some of the most frequently used sources in video game character articles are listicles. While listicles can be OK as ancillary sources, they usually do not constitute significant coverage, and should not be used as the backbone for the article's content. These are often considered trivial mentions of the characters, and consideration should be given to what's actually being said: ranking is often arbitrary and seldom is worth mentioning, and if the list entry itself is saying very little in the way of citable statements, it's likely not worth citing.

Editors should assess each listicle to determine how/if it can be used and whether it supports notability. For example, the fact that Terra Branford may appear in a "Best 10 characters in Final Fantasy VI" list is not even worth mentioning in the article. Because the game has so few characters, the scope is too small for the simple inclusion of a character to be worth noting. However, if the article offers significant commentary about Terra then the commentary could be used, and it may constitute significant coverage for notability. In contrast, if Terra appears on a list of "Best 10 characters in role-playing games", the simple fact that she is included is worth mentioning in the article, considering the large scope. However, unless the commentary about Terra is considerable, it would not be considered significant coverage in regards to notability.

Reliable sources

Sources used should be vetted as reliable on WP:VG/RS, or otherwise the case can be made that they are reliable sources. Note that some sources may be considered reliable, but cannot be used to demonstrate notability. This is particularly true with content farm-type websites and networks.

Independent of the subject

The sources that establish notability cannot be published by the creator of the character. They must be published by a third-party. For example, Final Fantasy VII Ultimania Guidebook, while a great a detailed source that is used in articles such as Cloud Strife, does not establish the notability of Cloud because it was published by Square Enix, the same company that made the character.

Lists of characters

Sometimes, video game characters are discussed together in a list, such as List of The Last of Us characters. Notability of lists is guided by WP:LISTN, which states the following:

Notability of lists [...] is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. [...] The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable...

This means that in order for The Last of Us characters to be notable enough for a list article, there must be sources that discuss The Last of Us characters as a group or set. That is to say, they speak about The Last of Us characters and their relationships between each other from a general perspective, rather than individual characters.

Limiting entries on a list

Some video game franchises have many so many characters that listing every character would make the list an indiscriminate collection of information. Many of the characters may be relatively unimportant. Per WP:LISTN, lists can be pruned at editor discretion:

...editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

In choosing the list criteria, it should be objective and based in reliable sources. Characters should not be choosen for inclusion arbitrarily. For an example of a list with limiting criteria, see List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters, which is limited to characters that have appeared in at least two games or two different forms of Sonic media, or List of Kirby characters, which developed different criteria to support different character types.

List titles

Some video game character lists are titled List of [X] characters (List of The Last of Us characters) while other are titled Characters of [X] (Characters of God of War) or Characters in [X] series/franchise (Characters in the Mario franchise). How the article is titled should be based on the type of content in the article. If the article is a pure list, and does not have any other sections about themes or analysis, then List of [X] characters is probably most appropriate. In the case of Characters of God of War, the article has sections about overall concept and critical reception, so Characters of [X] is more appropriate.

AFD and merge discussions

When video game character articles are nominated for merge or deletion, arguments should be focused on how the subject meets the GNG.

Helpful arguments

• If you believe keeping the article is the best option...
  • If there are sources in the article that you think demonstrate significant coverage, list out which sources those are.
  • Share independent, reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage of the character. Even if you don't have time to work them into the article, sharing the sources in the discussion is enough to demonstrate the coverage exists, which is all that is needed for the sake of notability discussion.
  • Improve the current article. It can sometimes help other editors see the same potential in the article that you do.
  • Avoid the "anything goes" approach when arguing for the article: consider sources you are suggesting, and lead with your best ones. First impressions matter.
• If you believe merging/deleting the article is the best option...
  • Share which search engines and queries you ran that gave you no results / minimal results of significant coverage.
  • Share the strongest sources available. If a weak source is "the best source out there", and no one can find anything better, that can become an argument to merge/delete.
  • For merge discussions, create a draft of the merged version to show what it would look like in the target article. This can sometimes convince other editors that it is the preferred path forward.
  • Remember that WP:THREE is an essay, not a policy. Some articles may still be able to exist with smaller sources offering tangible statements, as long as there's still some substance in those statements.

Arguments to avoid

• Alluding to the fact that "sources exist" without sharing them.
• Saying that the sources in the article constitute "significant coverage" without listing which sources you are talking about.
• Saying that the character is not worthy of an article because they are a minor character, not important, only appear in one game, or whatever.
• Saying that we should/should not have a character article because another character does/does not have an article
• Stating "the character meets/doesn't meet GNG" without explaining why. GNG is not an objective line in the sand. Significant coverage only means a character is presumed to be suitable, but what constitutes significant coverage is up to interpretation, and other factors could deem that an individual article is not the best option.
• Stating that the article should be redirect or merged, because sources confirmed to contain significant coverage aren't cited in the article. While it is helpful for said sources to be incorporated into the article in determining whether it should be kept, it is not required, so long as it's known that such sources exist, per WP:NEXIST.