I question the parts regarding only being well-known for the adapted medium, and being basically the same character. For example, Atticus Finch is arguably the case for both of those, but it's undeniable that he is a well-realized adaptation, partially because of the strength of Gregory Peck's acting. Your Bond example is also off, because the books were reasonably popular and anyway most of the Bonds are fairly different from the book version.
Adapting something from one medium to another is almost always going to bring about inherent differences; The Stick of Truth example you mentioned, where they are explicitly designed to be as much in the style of the show as possible, are something of exceptions.
Also, what about characters from famous Disney adaptations like Sleeping Beauty or Frozen or Beauty and the Beast or Hunchback of Notre Dame? Aside from perhaps the last one of those, the source material is largely fairy tales that are hundreds of years old and are generally substantially altered. However they are generally far less known than their Disney counterparts, and many have not read the original tales. That fact might disqualify them, but surely it can't be denied that they are not only adaptations, but very different from the source characters? This is frankly true of most movies, especially the less recent the derivative work; moves tend to overshadow source material most of the time.
I mean, I can just give you my 10 favorite LotR characters and call it a day (several would make it either way), but surely that's less interesting?
There's also the complication of seeing and adaption beforehand. I watched Batmas: TAS long before I read any comics, and my conception of the characters was absolutely informed by that. I love Two Face not because of his comics, but because of the TAS version I encountered first. Then there are all of the adaptations I've experienced without ever seeing the source material... how can I judge them on the merits of the adaptation if I've never experienced the original? At that point it's just a character I like, and adapting them has nothing to do with it. It's practically irrelevant that they were created for some other work before.
One final things, and I know this is reaching a bit, but what about characters that are not strictly the same, but are based off of others in stories based on others. Think King Lear > Ran or Romeo & Juliet > West Side Story. Many of these characters are direct analogies to the original work, even if they are technically different characters.
I think you're overthinking it. I put in the qualifying language just to eliminate people trying to get characters in that clearly shouldn't qualify like a Pokémon. And I think there's plenty of licensed games like Stick of Truth that are intended to be identical to the source material (such as any of the Dragon Ball fighting games).
Most of the examples you named would be eligible, including Atticus Finch and the Disney movies. Where I'd draw the line is characters loosely based on literary works that aren't the same character such as your West Side Story example.
And as for Bond, I guess we'll just have to disagree. That is a rare character who is only famous because of the films, and I don't believe the average person even knows he started as a literary character at this point.
Nope, I absolutely agree with ZAP. Bond is exactly the type of character that belongs in this, because there have been plenty of changes. ---
"Someday I'll catch up, and then you'll all be surprised!" BKSheikah has the power. He is the one.