Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Patterson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wholly insignificant character; player's character in the MOH/COD games might as well be nameless avatars. No claim of notability and zero citations to any sort of sources. This is merely a list of appearances, gameguide weapons trivia, and a listing of "awards" (i.e. military recognitions) garnered by this make-believe fellow. Easily/sufficiently covered in main franchise article. No attempt to address the subject in an encyclopedic manner, undoubtedly because no significant third-party sources responding to/scrutinizing this might-as-well-be-nameless character exist. --EEMIV (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability. Excessive fictional detail per WP:GAMECRUFT. Character's fictional relevance would be adequately covered by a series plot summary. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is the major character from a major franchise and is covered in multiple reliable sources means it is notable. Moreover, WP:ITSCRUFT is not really a reason for deletion.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was pointing out the cruftiness as a reason not to merge, not as a reason to delete. The games are covered in multiple sources, the character himself is only mentioned as part of the plot summary for those games. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cruft is never a reason to not do anything. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused. Appealing to WP:ESSAYS are not valid justifications for doing or not doing things. WP:Guidelines, such as WP:GAMECRUFT, are. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR with regards to needlessly restrictive nonsense non-academic terms no one need take seriously. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If kept, nothing of the article could be salvaged anyway. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourced out of universe content is indeed salvageable. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep another main character of a significant game. How that gets to be called an "insignificant" character is something I do not understand--I think the nom. means to say an uninteresting character, or one without much depth. He may be right, but then the thing to do is to find a source that says it and add it to the article.   A character with relatively little to say about him would usually mean a shorter article, but not zero.  I'd be satisfied to merge this into the main article for the game, only if there were some guarantee that the material would actually be merged, and once merged, would remain.  Since this can be be securely specified, and attacks on merged material are ongoing, the only option for now is keep.    DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being significant to a series of video games is so far from being a significant character. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article does not assert notability, and it is very unlikely that the character can actually be developed into anything decent. There is little use in salvaging any of the content, as the the bulk of the article is written like it's documenting a real person. TTN (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as above; this is unencyclopaedic trash material. Wikipedia *is* a fansite, but it's not supposed to be. Jack Merridew 05:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep main character of significant game, should be able to be referenced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment re disruption of this AfD; see:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Patterson&diff=prev&oldid=312318043
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Patterson&diff=prev&oldid=312318153
 * Talk:Jimmy Patterson, Talk:Medal of Honor (video game), and Talk:Medal of Honor: Heroes now assert that
 * Jimmy Patterson "must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor (video game) exists."
 * Jimmy Patterson "must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor: Heroes exists"
 * See: Guide to deletion where it says:
 * You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of Wikipedia's licensing). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy.
 * This is blatant disruption with the aim of subverting the AfD process.
 * Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * moar :
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medal_of_Honor:_Frontline&diff=prev&oldid=312389351
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJimmy_Patterson&diff=312389309&oldid=312318153
 * Jimmy Patterson and Talk:Medal of Honor: Frontline now assert that
 * Jimmy Patterson "must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor: Frontline exists."
 * Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * and there's Ikip and DGG editing TTN's comments, above; see history ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I have gone through the entire edit history of this AfD and do not see anywhere that TNN's comments here have been edited by anyone other than TNN. I do see editor's tweaking their own comments... such as  or  or  or  or  and there is IKip's removal of whitespace in an A Nobody coment ...  but no where on this page could I find either A Noboy or Ikip editing TNN's AfD comments. Your allegation has me quite confused. Could you share the diff I missed? Please? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack is thinking of another AfD discussion on a related topic. Easy error to make. --EEMIV (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, actually he did what we should do per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE if not WP:IAR. Supposedly, deletion is a last resort when no other options exist for improving an article.  So there's no need to get caught up denigarating the editor.  We are volunteers and if we can do something with content, we should do it. Growth is the purpose of Wikipedia, and not its bane.  Though not prolific, I for one have writen a few articles and done what I could to improve a few others for the project. Is that not why we are here?? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you being serious? Can we drop the inclusion/deletion bit right now and just ask ourselves if we want a process that works or not?  Because a process which is broken simply by forcing an action isn't very robust.  Right now you are telling me that even if every single person in this debate voted to delete the article in question, we would have to keep it because one person's actions bound our hands...and that's good?  What if, right now, I just deleted the article because I felt like it?  I could argue that IAR lets me do that, or maybe pick some related CSD.  Would that be appropriate?  No.  Also WP:BEFORE is before, not WP:DURING. Protonk (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Inclusion/deletion bit? I am someone who quite often opines a delete for the unsalvagable. Does that make me a deletionist??  I also try to improve those that have merit so as to better the project. Does that make me an inclusionist?  I also have written a few minor articles. Does that make me a creationist?  I reject use of those terms. We are all Wikipedians together here... hopefully striving to help Wikipedia grow. Labels act to treat others as stereotypes and distract away from the matters at hand. Yes, per WP:ATD, BEFORE should have allowed consideration of placement of materials where they have greater context and notability. WP:Preserve should not be treated with distrust as if it were some evil inclusionist mantra.  If editors striving to save articles use the term, that usage should not be used to belittle their efforts. Preserve should be the watchword of all who edit this project, as each edit to each page represents time and thought and effort... sometimes lots of time... sometimes lots of thought... sometimes lots of effort... from those here working to make Wikipedia better for our readers.  I feel we have a duty, spoken or not, to ensure that the contributions of others are cherished. If not suitable in one article, they may be well suited for another.  And no... lets not devolve into discussions about vandalism, as that is not what he has done... and yes, there are contributions made to Wikipedia that do not belong. These are not those. Its the denigrating labels that hurt Wikipedia.... and the world had enough problems already with folks slapping labels on those with whom they disagree. Protonk, you are a fine editor. With respects, the above is simply my opinion. And I will always continue doing my best to improve the encyclopedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The bulk of what you said above is what I hoped to avoid. I want to eschew labels.  I am not interested in broad accusations.  the question I pose is this "Is it legitimate or laudable to merge content during an AfD with full knowledge that a successful merge will prevent that AfD from being closed as delete?"  A followup question would be (since it appears you would answer in the affirmative) "Does this deciding vote (as it were) extend to the deletion of content?  If not, why not?"  My contention is simple.  Merging is something any editor can do, but only an administrator (borrowing words here from the discussion at WT:AFD) can undo and only with some effort.  You can merge something but if I disagree with that merger, I need to delete the page and restore only portions of the revision history which do not contain your edits.  If someone who is not an admin disagrees with you, they are powerless (individually) to reverse your action.  If the closing admin of a deletion debate is not interested in performing an action like that (or the targeted page has many revisions making the process cumbersome), then the merger vetoes a deletion debate.  The debate must be closed as redirect, keep or merge.  Is it fair that an editor may veto a deletion debate? Protonk (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete in spite of the merge and remove the deleted content from the merge targets through deletion and selective restoration. I'll be pretty pissed if I dig through recent AfDs and find out this is a common occurrence. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Manon Batiste, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And Articles for deletion/Isola (fictional island), evidently. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And Articles for deletion/Todd Williams (The Young and the Restless). Protonk (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand, and further source. Jimmy Patterson is not so insignificant as is being asserted . Retaining the article and allowing it to be improved through normal editing also improves the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as major character in major game series who is verifiable through reliable sources. No pressing need to redlink as content is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copy vio. Moreover, useful material from this article was merged following WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:IAR in order to improve two other articles that no one would reasonably question the notability of. Thus, given that myself and any other article editor is a volunteer who is only able to edit when he or she has time, no one concerned with the actual improvement of the project would rather focus on process wonkery rather than allowing what actually improves article content of article's no reasonable editor would contest, i.e. the main game articles. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not play games. When we have content that can be used to improve other articles and the article under discussion is not one of dangerous content the public must not see, there is no reasonable cause not to be bold. And certainly no reasonable editor would want to diminish the quality of other articles just to adhere to something that need not be adhered to anyway. In this case we have reliably sourced information that benefits those articles and given that in the worst case scenario this legitimate search term would be redirected anyways per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, no legitimate or honest reason exists why we would urgently need to be rid of the edit history. Also, Happy Labor Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is literally one sentence at this time, one sentence, being used to prop up an entire article on the grounds of notability. There's no reception, and no real character development. This is a mess, and when cleaned up, there's nothing left.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As he gets over 70 Google News hits, I am working on the development and reception information now. I will do what I can before relatives arrive and we party for the holiday.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - the extent of information from reliable, third-party sources is "this is the character you play in the game." - but somehow from this we've extrapolated extensive fictional biography and trivia sections. Knowing what grade he got in Fluid Dynamics at the University of Michigan goes way beyond WP:VGSCOPE and WP:WAF - this almost looks like a Something Awful parody. Any relevant plot information belongs in the plot synopsis of the game articles. Marasmusine (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please factually describe the article. The following is not mere plot:
 * Michael Giacchino explains that in "Medal of Honor, Jimmy Patterson was represented by two different major themes - the main Medal of Honor theme, and his own more personal theme which was used during the tougher moments of his Journey."
 * For Medal of Honor Frontline, "EA LA decided to make Patterson the star of the D-Day level in order to streamline the plot and eliminate the confusion of switching main characters."
 * GamePro contends that "Frontline revolves around the heroics of Lt. Jimmy Patterson (Medal of Honor's original star)...While the overall goal is the HO-IX, Patterson frequently stops to help out as Operation Market Garden (the Allies' infamous paratrooper assault) takes place all around him. He storms Arnhem alongside British airborne troops, infiltrates a German armored train, rescues a prisoner from a Nazi-held manor, demolishes a U-boat, and much more. You truly get the sense that you're a cog in a much bigger machine, and it's both refreshing and enjoyable that, for once, you're not the caricatured hero with the only chance of saving the day."
 * Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first two sources are not third-party, they are claims made by people involved with the production. Your third source is an in-universe plot summary from a review for the game, not coverage of the character himself. Any mention of the character is apparently dependent on coverage of the individual games. There is no significant coverage of the character himself. His relevance (and verifiability) does not extend beyond the games in which he appears. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The second source is from IGN, a reliable web source for gaming. The third source is a reliable sources, because for that information, who better than to explain the musical themes for the character than the composer?  The fourth and fifth sources come from gaming magazine GamePro.  The character is also verfiable through many others as confirmed by Google Books and Google News.  As today is a holiday, I only have limited time.  I merely got the ball rolling, but there is absolutely much more out there that we can use to expand the article further.  Please keep in mind as well that we are discussing the main character from the 30th best selling video game franchise.  Surely the main character from such a successful franchise is at least worthy of a redirect with edit history intact.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliability of a source, even assuming that it is as such, is not what determines whether an article should exist for a subject, nor does it change the definition of what a first or third party is. Please stop using straw arguments. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is the main character of a major series who is discussed in numerous reliable sources does. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * keep, merge, or redirect There has been some really promising good work on this article, adding a lot of good sources. Ikip (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Main character in a notable series of games.  D r e a m Focus  14:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable character with no cultural impact outside the game. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN is not a valid reason fro deletion, especially when not true due to the character's cultural impact outside of the game. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please never reply to me - I have *no* interest in what you have to say. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This a discussion, not a list of votes. And in these discussions, I strongly encourage you to make factually accurate statements, because generally speaking if not me, then someone will challenge you when they are not.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then they are welcome to do so but I am frankly sick of your badgering patronising tone, OCD manner and your habit of repeating the same fucking comments to me and other people every time we say something. I am not interested in debating with *you*, I'm happy to take on anyone else. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you think I feel when I am actually improving the articles under discussion and accounts who make no effort to improve the articles show up with rapid fire copy and paste WP:PERNOM, WP:ITSCRUFT, and WP:JNN that reflect no effort to actually look for sources, no real knowledge of the topic under discussion, and in many instances are just plain false? I don't mind arguing with editors who are actually making good faith efforts with regards to the subject, it is another thing when it is with those who are uninformed about the subject and are so inconsiderate of their colleagues that they don't even bother to help or make truthful statements concerning others' volunteer work.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like a standard biography of a fictional character, that needs a better referencing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Medal of Honor (series) - essentially an entirely in-universe plot summary with no real-world notability. The 'development' and 'reception' sections could be merged to Medal of Honor (series), which is where this should probably be redirected to, but I see no reason why the extensive fictional biography is worth keeping. Robofish (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per Robofish. This character is not notable per our standards, WP:NOTE.  There are keep !votes as smokescreen without any valid reason given.  Drawn Some (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has presented any valid reason for deletion, because the atricle is notable per our standards by any honest interpretation of them. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:34, 11 September 2009 (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.