Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manon Batiste


 * 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. Just too much splitted on notability criteria here. Tip: Please add some references in the second half. That would be helpful in the event of a future AFD (if this happens). JForget 19:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Manon Batiste

 * ( [ 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 third-party sources (currently, article is referenced only to the games themselves). This is merely a regurgitation of game plot 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) 02:11, 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)
 * Keep due to improvements. I did some searches on Google News and Google Books and was able to address the various criticisms of the article above.  The article is indeed a significant character who appears in multiple well-received mainstream games, including as the main character in one game who is additionally notable in the real world as being based on a historical figure.  The article is not solely plot and I am not opposed to condensing that aspect of the article to make it more balanced, but in any event, the article now contains out of universe development information and some reception information.  Looking at reviews, I expect to be able to add even more out of universe context, but just wanted to note the progress thus far.  But as we have seen the article is being addressed now in an encyclopedic manner, because significant third-party sources regarding this fascinating character do indeed exist.  If the nominator can live with a redirect, then per WP:BEFORE a discussion concerning the redirect should have been discussed on the article's talk page and if the article's referenced content can be covered elsewhere then per WP:PRESERVE and Merge and delete we would still at worst redirect with the edit history intact.  As there is no pressing need to redlink here and no one is really calling for that, this discussion really should be speedily closed with a merge/redirect discussion taking place on the article's talk page.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A sentence about real-life inspiration and a blurb about developing the soundtrack (note it's not a third-party source) are not evidence of significant third-party coverage. The article remains a bastion of trivia, plot summary, unreferenced speculation and other cruft. --EEMIV (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when the article contains non-trivial referenced information. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see what my "cruft" link leads to. Hint: I anticipated you once again tossing up your "don't call things cruft" boilerplate. Please stop responding to me on AfD discussions; I find engagement with you frustrating, and I think we can mutually agree we won't change each other's mind, much as we're confident in the soundness of our own arguments. I'll similarly refrain from acknowledging your existence or relevance in AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you replied to my keep argument first... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Page currently stands as entirely in-universe description. Not enough real world content for a standalone article. Shii (tock) 19:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is actually totally not true given the out of universe Development and reception sections... Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to excellent improvements of out of universe context. Very well referenced article. On the list of the best selling video games of all time. Ikip (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Ikip has !voted below. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction! I removed the one below. *Blush*  I am so embarrassed, thanks again for pointing this out! Ikip (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep even though the principal character, a proper merge might be bertter, but there is the difficulty in getting a merge to a. be sufficient, and b. to stick. I'm thinking right now of World of Monkey island,; a number of combination pages were merged into here a  year ago, biut the entire merged section was edited out at  just been removed earlier today, along with a good deal else, and with the edit statement for one of the deletions,  at , that " these sections are going to be turned into bullets."  I think it's much better to merge, but not if things like this are going to happen. Until we have a way of preventing this, the only alternative to loss of content is to keep the separate articles. Combination  articles was the one viable compromise, but it is only viable if done in good faith. I am not happy feeling it necessary to support keeping individual articles than I would really like, by people who are taking an truly extreme position on removing content outside of AfD  DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a single article might have a better flow in general. Shii (tock) 21:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (Without prejudice to merge however) I'm sorry but there doesn't seem to be enough real-world information to warrant a full article here...what there is is being blown out of proportion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * but that argument is support of a merge, not delete  DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless, in addition to there being enough real-world information to warrant a full article or at worst to justify some kind of redirect, the content has already been merged and as such, we cannot delete per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay could the two of you please get off my case? DGG, I respect you, though in this case I don't think too much could really be salvaged if anything. However with that said I'll agree there's no prejudice on my part for a merge if it goes that way. And A Nobody...let me vote how I want. You can disagree with me or you can spend that time actually fixing what you rush to rescue. Leaving a bad article after a closed afd still bad is a hollow victory and setup for another AfD down the line by someone else.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The character is does not assert true notability (actual significant coverage in reliable sources), and the content is not worth salvaging. The content that was "merged" is part of an attempt to force the article to be kept, so the edits should be deleted as well. TTN (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The character is indeed notable and anyway WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. Sourced out of universe content is indeed worth salvaging.  We are here to build an encyclopedia and so no reasonable admin would ever delete merged edits that actual improve other articles.  Look, I know it annoys some who for whatever odd reason are bent on deleting to have something merged, but that is what we are supposed to do per WP:IAR and WP:PRESERVE and so upon doing actual research I discovered that Manon is based on a real and noteworthy French resistance fighter and was able to use some of the information from the Manon article to both improve the article on the actual game, which had no real references, and write an article on someone of actual historical importance.  How could adhering to some snapshot in time AfD somehow trump using content to improve articles that pretty much no one would reasonably dispute?  If we are really here to build an encyclopedia then it is not about forcing anything, but about making the most of the available content and in this particular case we have information that regardless of what you think of her article does actual help two other articles.  Moreover, given that she is one of an overall minority of main characters in a game series based on a real world historical figure she is worthy of coverage in some capacity, whether it be continued improvement of this article or further merging, but clearly there is no pressing need to red link here.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now has out-of-universe material, and notable as main character from important game. well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment re disruption of this AfD; see:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AManon_Batiste&diff=312242721&oldid=185007402
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AManon_Batiste&diff=312248708&oldid=312242721
 * Talk:Manon Batiste now asserts that
 * Manon Batiste "must not be deleted so long as Hélène Deschamps Adams exists"
 * Manon Batiste "must not be deleted so long as Medal of Honor: Underground 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 06:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as above; this is unencyclopaedic trash material. Wikipedia *is* a fansite, but it's not supposed to be. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the above, performing the necessary revision deletion through deletion of the target page and selective restoration. Disruption of AfD through merging in order to force an attribution problem is unacceptable. Protonk (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any actual reason why this verifiable out of universe content concerning a main character based on a real historical person is so detrimental to the project that it must be outright redlinked rather than even redirected and why content from this article that actually improves an article on a major figure of the French resistance and of a notable video game would be better off removed thereby diminishing the quality of those articles. Seriously.  Are we here to build an encyclopedia of actual content or play games?  I am a volunteer.  I have the information now; I could use it now.  Using it improves two articles that no reasonable editor would want deleted.  This article is not a hoax, not libelous, not a copy vio, i.e. not something that we must prevent the public from seeing and certainly not something anyone can provide a reasonable reason why at worst would not be redirected.  Why on earth would anyone NOT be WP:BOLD and do what we are allegedly supposed to be here to do?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And you haven't done anything except gainsay points made above by inverting phrases and spout platitudes about building the encyclopedia. When I want to have a conversation with you, I'll drop by your talk page.  As for the article, this was covered in the ample nomination but the article subject is not covered in detail by independent sources (even including the large number of game reviews which mention the title character incidentally), the article itself is a recitation of plot points, and a redirect placed over a deleted article works just as well to bring readers to a notable subject as does a redirect over a history.  I'm not against redirected rather than deleting.  Where I get my hackles up is when the redirection is forced by virtue of a merger undertaken during the AfD. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article contains information on development ranging from noting that it is based on a real historical figure who served as a consultant for the game as well as interview information on the music chosen for the character as well as reception information noting the character's inclusion in a list of best female video game characters. There's actually more available from the Google Searches, but I, as a volunteer, thought it more important to a) focus on the historical figure she is based on for now and b) spread some wiki love by giving my colleagues Happy Labor Day messages.  Anyway, none of that out of universe context is simple "plot", i.e. not plot cannot apply to something that is not entirely plot.  Yes, the majority of the article may be plot and a case could be made for compacting that aspect of the article further, but certainly not the whole thing, ergo not plot is not valid in this case as the article is not all plot.  And if anything, where I and many others get frustrated is when on something that does not have a deadline we volunteers are "forced" into acting urgently to do something to save the article while arguing with those who are not helping in that process.  Instead of being able to gradually improve things, we are forced into kicking things in gear in a mere week to impress, to be honest, some who no matter what we do will still just keep arguing against us and I know that after I saw at least one participant here try to get rid of the article on a character from a work of classic literature that has been adapted into nearly TWENTY films.  What I did to improve this article and to use information from this article to improve others is what should happen through normal editing.  It does not require an AFD and if a redirect is valid, then there is no need when something that does not appear to be a vandalism magnet should not maintain its edit history as when additional sources become available, editors can have the basis from which to work without having to trouble any admin to undelete.  I am not forcing anything on anyone.  The article can still be merged further or redirected accordingly or if additional sources emerge outright kept.  And anyway, how is that any worse than the usual half dozen accounts who happen to be there for a week or so discussion determing the fate of something that may have lasted for years and been edited by hundreds or thousands who just happened to miss that five to sveen day discussion?  We have to be reasonable in these discussions.  When we actually have material that benefits other articles, we should not have to wait to improve those articles and certainly not when the article under discussion is not something controversial that needs to be deleted for legal reasons.  We are supposed to try everything we can to improve our articles and only when all else fails delete.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - plot information belongs in the plot synopsis of the relevant game articles. The remainder (an extensive fictional biography? Good grief) is not within the scope of this project. The extent of reliable, independent coverage appears to be "this is the character you play in the game." Marasmusine (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Article contains out of universe information that is being expanded and cannot be deleted anyway do to merge that improves two other articles. Please be honest.  The following:


 * She is based on Hélène Deschamps Adams, a real life member of the OSS, the forerunner of CIA, who also served as a consultant for the game.


 * Michael Giacchino explains that for "Manon, I wanted a theme that could convey one emotion at a particular moment, and then a completely different emotion the next without having to rely on two completely different themes. As a result, Manon's two main themes are very similar and yet very different. One version of the theme stays the course in a major tone, conveying a feel of great national purpose against the Nazi menace, and the secondary theme dips into a minor 6th chord which describes Manon's more intimate and emotional feelings as an individual and a woman who is pitted against the fascist war machine. Both of these themes are bookended with what liner notes author Paul Tonks has aptly named 'the resolve theme'. This theme was meant to represent the moments where Manon is called upon to steel her nerves and gather the courage to continue on with the fight....Manon travels to places that are not quite so militaristic as Jimmy Patterson.  Her journey was a bit more 'scenic'."


 * Producer Scott Langteau offers that "Manon used petrol bombs and also used her femininity to gain access to restricted areas. We used the freedom of telling her backstory- she was in the French Resistance, then joined the OSS-to give the game its own flair and widely varied missions that took us all over Europe: Greece, Italy, etc."


 * and


 * RealPoor ranks her among the 12 Best Female Characters in Video Games.


 * is more than just she is playable in the game. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Medal of Honor: Underground, where 95% of the real-world relevance is duplicated yet none of the plot is. This is a classic case of one articles' worth of content being split/forked across two articles for no good reason, and without any rhyme or reason as to what content goes where. Nifboy (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - typically sterile fancruft (and yes, A Nobody, I know you don't care for that word; no need to remind me). Utterly fails to respect WP:RS - aside from quoting the game itself, we have a blog, a forum, and self-published sites with no editorial oversight. What part of "[material] published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" is unclear? - Biruitorul Talk 19:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember to make honest and valid arguments in AfDs. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a legitimate reason for deletion, especially when the article is referenced through reliable sources, i.e. sourced through reputable sources with appropriate editorial oversight for our purposes.  And again, as the content has been merged to improve two other articles, this article cannot be deleted per the GFDL.  No editor with the project's best interests in mind would want to interfere with our ability to improve those article and no rational case can be made for why at worst we would not redirect this valid search term with edit history intact.  "I don't like" it doesn't cut it.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Like I said, we know of your aversion to the word "cruft"; no need to remind us every time. Cruft is still cruft, though, whether you like it or not. 2) Ah, the old "keep this or else!" trick. Sorry, but nothing in the GFDL prohibits merged text to be cut, augmented, otherwise altered or, yes, deleted at some later date. There's nothing sacrosanct about some junk about what some cartoon character did, which doesn't actually "improve" the encyclopedia one bit. 3) Let's cut through the fog and pose some direct questions. Where's the editorial oversight here? How about here? Here? Here? Let's have answers, not palaver about this being "sourced through reputable sources with appropriate editorial oversight for our purposes". - Biruitorul Talk 20:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cruft" is a nonsense term no real academic would ever use and thus precludes discussions from being, well, serious. Most importantly here though is that you refer to the main character of a video game with multiple appearances in a game series, who is based on a real historical figure and who is covered in third party reviews and previews of the game a "cartoon" character is revealing enough.  I encourage you to focus on discussions concerning subjects for which you have expertise.  Cartoons and video games are two different media and both have their legitimacy for coverage and should not be dismissed out of hand per personal preferences.  Moreover, you really don't think GamePro has editorial oversight?  And no, we do not remove sourced content from articles that actually improves them to humor such uninformed viewpoints concerning another article.  Thank you and happy Labor Day!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I can do without the sanctimony, thank you very much. "Cartoon" was merely used as a way to disparage "Manon Batiste"; I am aware of the difference between the two media. 2) Even if we concede GamePro has editorial oversight, that still leaves this, this and this afoul of WP:RS. - Biruitorul Talk 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as I reckon you probably know more about say Romania than I do, anyone with any actual knowledge on video games can recognize that Manon Batiste is a notable character, possibly one of the top 100 female video game characters of all time as she serves as the focus of one noteworthy game and appears in another. In addition to GamePro, she is also verifiable through a few other reliable sources as confirmed on Google News and Google Books. Thus, this article is not a hoax, not libelous, not a copy vio, etc., i.e. there is absolutely no pressing need whatsoever to redlink it on the paperless encyclopedia for everybody. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, having the ability to go through three search engines is not evidence of any big expertise, so I would stop playing that card if I were you. Secondly, you're constructing an ad populum and ad hominem discourse that really bogs down this discussion and does not advance your claims in any conceivable way. Now, to the point. I for one find the issue of GamePro and its reliability very unconvincing - its appears to be merely a fanzine among the thousands. That aside, the links you keep flashing about are flogging a dead horse. The google news search only mentions her 7 times in all, of which 6 are direct reviews of the game in specialized magazines, and even those, as focused as they are, mention the character in passing (when a wikipedia article on the game already exists). The remaining one is a tidbit in an overview of WWII-themed games. Not one of them appears to be mentioning her name more than once. That you would still be citing the google books stuff after my comment below is quite astounding: there are 4 mentions of her name in all, of which two are in textbooks you cited against recommended practice, one is a video game almanac, and the remaining one is a patent for the game (primary source, trivial etc.). And I can make neither heads nor tails of your "there is absolutely no pressing need whatsoever to redlink" argument. Dahn (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You find one of the leading game magazine's reliability unconvincing?! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] Oh, for Christ: "I encourage you to focus on discussions concerning subjects for which you have expertise. Cartoons and video games are two different media and both have their legitimacy for coverage and should not be dismissed out of hand per personal preferences." For the last time, nobody is objecting to these articles because they are "cartoons and video games", and you, A Nobody, know it. No one suggests deleting Medal of Honor: Underground or its main subsets. The issue here is an article about a minor character in its own genre, when we wouldn't even have/need articles on secondary characters in world literature classics (in general, I mean). It is also quite evident that, unlike this article here, articles on secondary characters in world literature classics have been subject to critical commentary in prominent secondary sources, and don't rely on fabricated or utterly marginal references in some of fanzines. It is therefore not the delete votes that are asking for an exception, it is the keep votes, so please stop your negative campaigning. The slogans are getting really old, really fast. Dahn (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is about a major character, one of the 100 or so most notable female video game characters of all time. No one has presented anything even remotely compelling as to what urgent desperate need there is to redlink this. This is where people lose me when a main character is falsely dismissed as minor. No, she is the heroine of a major game, appears in another, and is notable as well for being based on a real life heroic figure. There is a reason why people care enough about her to give her over 700 Google hits. Why on earth would we not want to do a service for our readership and at least have a redirect? Moreover, reliably sourced content from this article was used to improve two other articles that no one contests. Thus, no reasonable editor would want to diminish those articles by getting rid of this one. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "one of the 100 or so most notable female video game characters of all time" - assessments in various blogs don't establish relevancy; it is role in the narrative that ultimately does, provided of course the narrative itself needs that kind of detailing. Google hits, the relevancy of what she is supposedly based on and other such sophistry don't weigh anything in other discussions, and they sure don't weigh anything here. I see no biggie in redirecting the title, but I see nothing at all worth keeping from the text. In fact, I would salt it to prevent future attempts at recreating the content. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We only salt libelous or hoax content, not stuff actually covered in notable magazines. I see nothing here that we urgently have to protect the public from by deleting.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Notable". Yes, the circular argument. I'm done here, unless someone needs me to comment on something else. Dahn (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete content and Merge title into Medal of Honor: Underground. There really is no reason for a monument to fandom, with overfocused detail on episodic appearances of a secondary character, particularly since the sources are very questionable. This edit, which is advertised as a "rescue" added two google book snippets (the "snippets" part is itself indicative fir the negligence of sourcing here) from two textbooks (which we are not supposed to be using as sources) and the so-called Soundtrack Review which, by the looks of it, is a self-published site and personal project ("Soundtrack Review.net is finally closing down. My time is taken up with other pursuits and my desire to continue the site has waned to the point of extinction. (...) Many thanks go out to all of my readers.") Dahn (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to a valid discussion about merging and redirecting, for which someone could make a reasonable case, although most evidence points to an outright keep with further improvement also being a sound way forward. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging what? The superfluous profile? The ridiculous and sloppy "sourcing"? Let's be reasonable. As for "further improvement" - the potential sound of a falling tree in the forest should not prevent an article from being deleted. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The out of universe content from reliable sources is indeed mergeable. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have a clear understanding of WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Published books and GamePro count as reliable sources that verify this information and because it is addressed in multiple of them it is enough to justify at worst a merge and redirect of the content sourced from those books and magazine. These serve as relaible secondary sources.  Moreover, an interview with the actual game's composer serves as a reliable primary source.  The mixture of these sources is sufficient to justify something other than redlinking.  Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I've already answered to these points, please don't make me repeat myself by stating the same over and over again after I've answered them and stated that I don't intend to continue this conversation. It's a cheap tactic of diverting focus. In short: the claim about the article being sourced from reliable sources is debatable to say the least; the primary source is utterly irrelevant in proving notability (WP:PSTS); and, no, not all published sources are reliable sources. Dahn (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This particular published source is. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As with Jimmy's article, please keep in mind that we are discussing one of the two main characters from the 30th best selling video game franchise. Surely the two main characters, who are even featured in the game's cover art (see Medal of Honor: Underground), from such a successful franchise are at least worthy of a redirect with edit history intact.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only refer you to my comment above, and only add that your entire claim about notability through someone else's notability is a fine sample of association fallacy. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By being one of the 12 best female video game characters of all time, who is based on a real person, appears on a major game's cover, etc. she is notable in her own right. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean being called "one of the 12 best female video game characters of all time" by a guy named windshell in an internet forum... This type of "referencing" is what you base your claim on. Dahn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That and common sense, i.e. the cover girl of a major game, based on a significant real world person, also verifiable through reliable reviews and preveiews, etc. all add up. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's call a spade a spade: 1) the one "source" ranking the character in any way is a guy in an internet forum, whose opinion you cited as a reference in defiance of wikipedia policies; 2) that type of reasoning is not common sense, it's a fallacy; 3) if you base the claim that the subject is "one of the 12 best female video game characters of all time" [sic] on the personal judgment that it is "the cover girl of a major game, based on a significant real world person, also verifiable through reliable reviews and preveiews" [sic], you're not only in breach of WP:OR and WP:POV, as in introducing your own ranking, you're also doing it in the most ridiculous manner I have seen so far. Dahn (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting this article would go against everthing this project stands for by being the comprehensive encyclopedia anyone can edit. If we call a spade a spade, then we would rightly call this article notable and its subject verifiable through multiple reliable sources as confirmed by Google News and Google Books.  Suggesting otherwise is a ridiculous logical fallacy, because the subject is so obviously notable by any reasonable standard that no one can present any evidence that it is a hoax or libelous or that it does not have a valid redirect location or that no one finds it relevant.  Rather, it concerns a cover character based on a real historical figure who is confirmed through published books and on magazine sites who is part of the 30th most successful video game franchise of all time, i.e. it represents unorginal research from multiple perspectives.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable. A merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page as guideline instructs. Yes, the content might benefit from trimming.... but that's a matter for cleanup through the course of normal editing, not outright deletion. I note that even though this not-so-insignificant character is the MAIN character in Medal of Honor: Underground, and not some background throw-away, she is spoken of in only one meager sentence in that entire article... despite her being in books and in multiple reliable sources .  It should make no difference if it is a fictional character or not... no difference if you like the game or not... no difference if one likes the article or not... If a subject can be shown to meet the criteria of WP:GNG, the subject merits an article.  If no option is considered other than outright deletion, the project is not being well served. Time to consider acceptable compromises... and a merge that fleshes out the skeletal coverage of her in the main article is definitely worth discussiong. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again the same link to google news... Look, as I've said above, of the seven titles linked there, none address the subject in more than one sentence. This is the same for every source that was "cited" or quoted here, except for some of those that are unreliable - they may into whatever detail they want, but they're unquotable. the sources you mention simply state that the character exists, and this, I gather, is not up for debate. Since wikipedia is by definition less detailed and more synthetic than the sources it uses, and since not even parroting the reliable sources would make the entry grow in size (individually or as part of another article), your claim that something more could be said looks like inclusionist wishful thinking. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not simply the link, but the multiple reliable sources with those link and after all Google News and Google Books are NOT the end of reliable sources. The most relevant sources would be articles in other magazines that do not necessarily show up in the online archives and that none of us volunteers can reasonably be expected to have to scroll through in a mere week's time and on a holiday at that.  Moreover as indicated above, the sources go beyond just that the character exists, but to confirm as well that she is based on a historical person, how the music was chosen to represent her, how she is one of the best female video game characters of all time, her role in the game with regards to character backrgound, etc.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I won't debate with esoteric claims about what "else" should be out there but isn't. And all the existing sources have to say about the character goes into a sentence or two, whichever way you look at it. Full stop. Dahn (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they do not. The following is more than a mere sentence or two: Michael Giacchino explains that for "Manon, I wanted a theme that could convey one emotion at a particular moment, and then a completely different emotion the next without having to rely on two completely different themes. As a result, Manon's two main themes are very similar and yet very different. One version of the theme stays the course in a major tone, conveying a feel of great national purpose against the Nazi menace, and the secondary theme dips into a minor 6th chord which describes Manon's more intimate and emotional feelings as an individual and a woman who is pitted against the fascist war machine. Both of these themes are bookended with what liner notes author Paul Tonks has aptly named 'the resolve theme'.  This theme was meant to represent the moments where Manon is called upon to steel her nerves and gather the courage to continue on with the fight....Manon travels to places that are not quite so militaristic as Jimmy Patterson.  Her journey was a bit more 'scenic'."  Some of the reviews from not mere blogs but magazine websites verify the plot information concerning her specifically in full paragraphs.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But that one is an alleged statement from a primary source, republished by a venue with no real reliability. That presuming that the information has any relevancy to an encyclopedic coverage, which it appears is not the case. And also presuming that, if it has, it cannot be summarized in a few words - which it could. This is another thing to which I had already answered. As for the equivocation in "some of the reviews from not mere blogs but magazine websites verify the plot information concerning her specifically in full paragraphs", I have to say simply: nonsense. I and several other users have combed through your precious sources, and showed that this is clearly not the case, no matter how much you blur the issue at hand. Between that and your manifest ignorance of WP:RS, there's really nothing more to discuss here. Dahn (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We are allowed to use some reliable primary sources when we have other information verifying the rest of the article in reliable secondary sources. Anyone with any practical knowledge of video games and video game sourcing is arguing to keep or merge this article and that is the bottom line here, because even an amateur with regards to video games knows this character is worthy of at least a redirect with edit history intact, just even someone with only cursory knowledge of this subject recognizes the interview and magazines and books as reliable sources for this subject.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep While it could be referenced better, it is much to large to merge into the main article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Searching through google books and other google searches I could find no claim of valuable history or major significance, every link I could find simply mentioned the name, and there were very few mentions, nothing reliable to verify meaningful notability and this proves the character is too trivial to merit it's own article.- Josette (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? As pointed out above, Google News and Google Books both demonstrate that the character appears in multiple games, as the main and cover character in one, is considered one of the best female game characters of all time, is based on a real historical figure, etc.  Moreover, as the content has been merged, deletion is not an option.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note that like any other editor in good standing, I have the right to state my opinion at any AfD and do so without being harangued. I have read this entire thread plus done my own research as I am supposed to do and I still remain unconvinced that there is enough value in this character to have it's own article. I do not appreciate your disparaging remarks against me and I respectfully ask that you agree to disagree with me and leave it at that. Thank you. - Josette (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion. In a discussion editors interact with each other.  I am totally unconvinced that there is any reason to delete here, because there is no reason.  The article contains reliably sourced content concerning one of the most notable female video game characters who is based on a historical person of enough importance that she also has an article and who appears on the cover of a game in which she stars as the heroine.  She is covered in out of universe context in interviews and reviews.  Even cursory research reveals as much.  We can reasonably disagree about whether the article should be improved further or redirected to one of the merge locations, but as the lone participant in this discussion who actually shows real evidence of what sources I found, who actually added them to the article, and merged them to improve other articles following WP:PRESERVE, Merge and delete, Before, BOLD, and WP:IAR, I cannot allow factually inaccurate statements to go unchallenged.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup – could be much better sourced and prose cleaned up, but it looks like a valid spinout. Perhaps a merge could be discussed in the future, but perhaps it should be best put on hold after a good cleanup. MuZemike 19:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The character gets plenty of mention in reviews. Cnet's editor review speaks of her notable role in a game which really built on her history, and whatnot.  She isn't just some static character.  And she is the main character in a notable game.    D r e a m Focus  18:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Plot cannot be discussed without discussing characters, and every version of NOT PLOT thatn has ever been proposed requires the discussion of PLOT--the extent to which plot is to be described varies in the different versions, but they all say its an essential component.  This will lead to: "In this game, a character whose name we don't think important enough to tell you, engages in various adventures" -- or possibly not mention it at all, and have the article deal only with the production and distribution, and not say what the game is about. I guess that's the way of approaching fiction if one doesn't  think the contents of it are of the least importance.   DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meticulously well-written article on an arguably popular subject, at least within a certain gaming sub-culture. A lot of work has clearly gone into this article - and gone into making it adhere to Wikipedia standards.  This should be an easy KEEP.  --AStanhope (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Medal of Honor: Underground. Real world content already exists in the main article, and without knowing which came first, GFDL would seem to indicate it should be redirected. Much briefer plot summary could also be merged to the main, which currently lacks any. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Medal of Honor: Underground. This article is really just a glorified content fork.Singingdaisies (talk) 14:00, 14 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.