Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agent 47


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Agent 47

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Video game character of dubious notability. Reception is limited to listicles and starts unimpressively with "In 2012, GamesRadar+ ranked Agent 47 as the 47th...". My BEFORE failed to find anything useful other than plot summaries; academic reception is limited to passing mentions in an undergraduate paper and one book (note: I could only access snippets which don't suggest SIGCOV is met). Per WP:ATD-R, a redirect to Hitman (franchise) will suffice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: It looks like a consensus to Merge but recent comments offer some new sources that should be evaluated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Me personally, I feel 47 as a character is too notable to be delisted, as he seems to be generally well recognized within gaming as a whole. This doesn't mean his article can't be edited with better citations to other articles discussing him and the critical reception around him, as well as a complete removal of any academic studies of his character (he's no Isaac Clarke or Adam Jensen when it comes to this). This is just my suggestion, and you don't have to do it. Chiefmister (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge with Hitman (franchise): Currently, the Hitman (franchise) article has no descriptions of the games' characters, including 47. While I agree that the sources here don't establish notability, largely because they're listicles, and I haven't uncovered any further sources, several of the sources are from generally reliable publications and can be used to draft a description of 47 to be included in the article on the franchise. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I appreciate the sources identified in this discussion, I still think that this should be merged. As @Kung Fu Man has noted, the PC Gamer, Polygon, and PCGamesN articles are all basically game reviews with brief descriptions of 47. I don't think any of the listicles establish notability, including The Telegraph article cited by @OwenX. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says that once something hits mainstream news, it's notable. The book that @Zxcvbnm cited uses 47 as an example for how the player navigates the game, rather than a description of the character himself. In all, I think the sources identified amount to a significant amount of trivial coverage, rather than a sufficient amount of significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge...for now While my gut is telling me there should be more for 47 online, even looking at a 2018 version of it with a larger reception section shows it was all lists. I feel too WP:TNT should also come into play here: what's here, much like early Pokemon articles, is mostly uncited and useless, and if sources do manifest whatever editor works on it will likely be starting over from near scratch anyway.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge A was a bit surprised that this got nom'ed for afd. But, after some BEFORE search by other peeps above; probs not enough.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 09:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Agent 47's a clearly notable character. He got a full PC Gamer article, Polygon article, and a PCGamesN article. At bare minimum this is enough to confer clear WP:GNG on the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While I do feel there is some commentary in those first two articles Zx, they feel primarily about the games and related gameplay. Keep in mind this is me skimming through them after only being up a few hours, but arguing they're full articles on the character feels like a misnomer. And that ends up another problem with Agent 47: a lot of his commentary is hard to separate from commentary about how the game plays.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He also got an article in The Ringer about his character too. Vox is considered a WP:RS, even though they also own Polygon, it's different enough to be a distinct site and source. The articles may be about Agent 47's gameplay, but they still make it obvious they are referring to him rather than just the game in general. I am convinced he is notable given these sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see your point. What do you think about the TNT argument though? I'm really convinced what's here isn't usable, and after this many years of being in this state (and until recently a much WORSE state), I don't see it viably being an article without being started over from zero with what's there. And yes, WP:NODEADLINE is a thing but at some point you have to question if it's better to let someone potentially wanting to work on the thing undo the redirect on their own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * TNT doesn't make sense to me here, as no part of the article is technically "bad" besides the reception. The reception needs to be rewritten and current reception sources mostly or entirely discarded, but otherwise it can be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per KFM, I'd like to see someone do something with those sources, which seem to be rather freely written (blog / social media style rather than academic) before I'd consider withdrawing this nom. Nice job finding those sources, though. Maybe this can be rescued. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also found yet another SIGCOV here, in a book about villains in media. It talks about how players rationalize playing as a villain, giving Agent 47 as an example of a character who was created to be the perfect assassin, thus making it easier for players to "justify" what they are doing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, evaluating sources found by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The Vader, Voldemort and Other Villains source is excellent secondary SIGCOV. That book, with PCGamesN and The Ringer are a solid three (Noting, The Ringer is an SBNation site with a proper masthead and the author is a professional journalist who has written for many RS). PC Gamer and Polygon are helpful as well—though Polygon seems to rely a bit on quotes from a creative director. This meets WP:GNG. &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: significant coverage by reliable mainstream news such as the Telegraph swayed me away from my initial tendency to merge such articles. There is more than enough verifiable information here, and independent notability is well established. Once it hits mainstream news, it can no longer be dismissed as "cruft". Owen&times; &#9742;  15:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per all above JM (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per above, seems to have plenty of analysis discussing this character in specific.
 * PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep there's some academic coverage of Agent 47.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sources and I think the page is in somewhat of a bad state but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and the TNT arguement should be avoided Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources that ZX brought up appear to be sufficient material to warrant Agent 47 keeping a separate article. Negative  MP1  19:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.