Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manon Batiste (2nd nomination)


 * 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. A rough consensus of this discussion does not show enough support for deletion to close as such. Rather, about two-thirds supported keeping or merging/redirecting, with the arguments that the subject has sufficient notability to meet the general notability guideline and that a redlink should be avoided. A number of editors expressed that enough content exists on the subject to warrant a separate article, so I am hesitant to close this discussion as merge/redirect, but would highly encourage such a discussion be opened on the article talk page. Cheers and best regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 16:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Manon Batiste
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article has undergone negligible improvement during and since the previous AfD. The scant real-world commentary to the character is presented as a passing reference in a single review of the game itself, or as a series of non-independent "developer diaries" or direct quotes from producers about the music and the character -- i.e. topic has not received "significant" coverage. All of this content has already been copy-and-pasted to the relevant game article (or articles?). (This article's talk-page claims that this real-world information was "merged" to these target articles and that this base article must remain to maintain attribution. However, because the "responsible" editor made all the edits and used the exact same language, there seems not a need to maintain this article's history -- it wasn't so much a "merge" as a near-simultaneous copy-and-paste.) ANYHOW -- this article makes no substantiated claim for the topic's real-world notability independent of the game in which it is a protagonist, or other games in which it appears. A redirect has been undone, with one editor claiming that notability is established because the character is "one out of millions of game characters based on an actual historical figure". However, this claim is not articulated in the article itself, let alone substantiated -- furthermore, unless there's an academic investigation into "the few numbers of game characters based on historic figures," an interesting bit of statistical trivia doesn't convey notability. There is no compelling rationale to maintain this unnecessary content fork (which consists of snippets of duplicated passing commentary, and mostly gameplay/plot regurgitation). --EEMIV (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that previous AfD's closing admin's suggestion that sources be added hasn't been met. --EEMIV (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and prior argument; unencyclopaedic fancruft repeatedly restored by disruptive editor. Jack Merridew 17:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per GFDL. The article has undergone considerable improvement during and since previous AfD.  The significant real-world commentary is presented in multiple reviews of the game.  The article undeniably demonstrates real-world notability independent of the game in which it is a protagonist, or other games in which it appears. A redirect has been undone by multiple editors, with one editor claiming that notability is not established because the character.   This claim is articulated in the article itself and is substantiated by reliable sources, which conveys notability. There is no compelling rationale to delete this necessary content appropriate spinoff (which consists of significant commentary, and development and reception information). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A Nobody, have you once again forgotten the many, many times you've been asked (including several times by me) not to parrot back the structure and wording of other editors' comments? Why on Earth would you again stoop to such annoying mimicry? --EEMIV (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you see fit to swear and mock editors in your incivil edit summaries:, , etc.? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Myself and others mimic other editors comments ALL the time. So what? But Edit summaries like EEMIV's, mocking other editors comments, are much more troubling: "simplifying puffy bulshittery" "trying to puff up bullshit content?" are actually ACTIONABLE as personal attacks. Ikip  20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment removed some borderline attacks. Let's try to be civil.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the so-called-attacks; they're not. Let's not muddy this discussion. Jack Merridew 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we delete, strike, or move to the talk page everything here? Everything from "A Nobody, have you once again forgotten the many..." down?
 * Can you rewrite your section A Nobody since it obviously annoys EEMIV? Ikip 20:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I, for one, don't care to see this discussion redacted. Jack Merridew 20:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable. The references are merely name-checks on gaming websites. Ryan 4314   (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion and certainly when not true due to the out of universe commentary on reliable website. This book, for example, is not a gaming website.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you and your friends don't like the words: "non-notable" & "cruft" doesn't make my argument any less valid. Ryan 4314   (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether agreeing/disagreeing with a subjective "notable/not-notable" agrument, the factual aspect is indeed invalidated when the information is sourced from The Boston Globe and a few published books. Sure, some of the sources could be better, but there is enough coverage in reliable print secondary sources that is is factually inacccurate to say "The references are merely name-checks on gaming websites."  This is not a gaming website.  Moreover, it is out of universe, real world historical context: "She also was a consultant in 2000 for a Sony PlayStation game called ``Medal of Honor: Underground," featuring a heroine named Manon and based on her World War II missions".  At worst in such a scenario we would we merge and redirect per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better and WP:PRESERVE.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of the refs are poor, hence there are not enough refs to to represent notability. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the majority of the refs are quite good and it meets a common sense standard of notability. A character that appears in several games that appear on multiple systems including as the main character as seen on the game, the soundtrack, and strategy guide's covers who is familiar to millions of people worldwide is notable by an reasonable interpretation of that term.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No they're not: Refs 1-5 are name checks simply confirming the character exists and who her voice actor is. 6 is ok. 7 + 8 are specialised sources, not "independent of subject" (of course interviews with the game development staff would feature her, they do not represent coverage in the media however.) 9 + 10 simply recount in-game plot details. 11 + 12 are ok, but the point 13 references isn't even worthy of inclusion. In short, 3 "ok" refs do not represent notability, therefore does not warrant an individual article. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Collectively they are citations in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject are more than enough to justify inclusion on Wikipedia that cover out of universe development and reception information, i.e. they meet WP:N in such a decisive manner to warrant an individual article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Collectively they are a bunch of name-checks. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of universe reception and development information is hardly mere names checkes. Please remember to be honest.  Thank you.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence is there for all to see: 5 are name-checks, the 2 interview refs are not "independent of subject" and the rest recount plot. Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone actually looking at the references will see that the reviews of the game are indepdent of the subject and recount of out universe reception information. The interviews count as reliable sources for development information.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But they don't indicate notability (the issue at hand) as they're not "independent of subject". Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they are indepdent of the subject they indicate notability and I am not going to be persuaded otherwise no more than if someone tried to convince an apple is really a tangerine. And as this content was merged a while back and therefore cannot be deleted anyway per the GFDL, there is nothing to gain by going in circles.  Have a good night!  --A NobodyMy talk 00:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interviews of the game's development staff are obviously not independent of the subject. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The numerous reviews and previews of the c. half dozen odd games she appears in are. There are far more sources available on her than only those cited in the article.  You can help by adding some more.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the one claiming that good refs exist, you find em. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I already have (although I have actually also ordered some additional items from Ebay that cover her and that are not viewable on Google Books in preview/snippet form; these should arrive after New Years) and if I show you a basketball and you insist it really is a baseball then bringing forth another basketball will probably just have the same results. Fortunately, though, the majority of commenters here reasonably see that a playable character in a mainstream multiplatform franchise released globall for which millions of people are familiar with a character based on a real world person whose article got a DYK is at worst merge and redirectable, but there is no justification or need whatsoever to burden an admin with redlinking this article and to protect the public from its content.  Good night!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you think we should keep this article so as to not "burden an admin with redlinking". Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no discussion of this minor video game character and its real world impact/meaning. The only one or two reliable sources that mention this name merely, well, mention it as in the obit. Clear fail of all the notability and inclusion guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to read the discussion and review sources when commenting in AFDs. The Boston Globe presents out of universe, real world historical context: "She also was a consultant in 2000 for a Sony PlayStation game called ``Medal of Honor: Underground," featuring a heroine named Manon and based on her World War II missions".  Besides, as this content was merged months back, it cannot be deleted per the GFDL anyway.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it all. I accept you think that sentence constitutes in depth exploration and analysis of the character. I think it constitutes a trivial mention in an entirely different context. So don't presume to lecture me about what i have or haven't read. I simply disagree with you. Sincerely and with the utmost respect.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We are discussing a playable character from a major franchise with appearances beyond the game on which she even appears on the cover art who is based on a real person. There is NO pressing need to redlink such a valid search term and certainly not when there is sufficient in depth exploration and non-trivial analysis of the character to justify at worst the merge for which we cannot redlink anyway.  By the way, you can see her on the cover of this book.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, i also accept that you believe promotional cover art using a fictional character that appears in a work of fiction consstitues in depth, ongoing, independent analysis and coverage of the sort that would justify an entry for the fictional character seperate from the work of fiction itself in a general encyclopedia. I don't believe any of that. I believe it constitues advertising for the work of fiction and provides no information -- none, zilch, nada -- that would allow to construct a proper encyclopedia article or justify inclusion. With warmest affection and great sincerityBali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All of that is irrelevant as this discussion cannot end in delete anyway due to the requirement of keeping attribution history public. And it is not a mere fictional character, but rather an adaptation of a real person.  Moreover, we are NOT just a general encyclopedia.  Per our first pillar, we are also a specizliaed enycclopedia and a paperless one at that.  The out of universe development and reception information are sufficient to justify inclusion as a proper encyclopedic article.  By contrast, there is absolutely no pressing need to redlink something that is not a hoax, not libelous, nor a copyright violation.  A major character with appearances in multiple mainstream games as verified in multiple reliable sources meets any reasonable or common sense standad of notability in addition to the ever changing Wikipedic definition.  It is not a matter of subjective opinion.  It is a matter of objective fact that 1) she is a main character; 2) she is based on a real person; 3) information in the article is verified in multiple reliable sources; 4) content has been merged and so the edit history must remain public per the GFDL; 5) she is not a hoax; 6) she is not libelous, etc.  There is no objective need to redlink.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not objective.  You can make a case for restoring the redirect (which is the worst possible acceptable outcome, as it cannot legally be deleted), but that is it.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That wall of text does not change the fact that there is no independent reliable source analysis and discussion of the real world relevance of this character anywhere. With the highest sincerity i can muster.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can say that a banana is not a banana but it doesn't change the fact that it is, just as you can claim over and over that no independent reliable sources analysis and discussion exists of the real world relevance of this character despite such sources being presented both in this article, across two discussions, and by even a rudimentary Google search. Information from this article was used to make a DYK article on a real person.  No one can objectively deny that this character is covered in out of universe fashion in multiple indepdent reliable sources, but again, since the article cannot be deleted anyway, there is no real point to this exchange.  So, Merry Christmas!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The info is too much for the main article. The references are standard for fictional characters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "main article" to which you refer -- I'm assuming the game in which she's a protagonist -- is actually bereft of any gameplay details. The contents in this particular article are poorly written gameguide trivia, but the notion that there's "no room at the inn" for additional content at the game article is simply incorrect. As for "standard" references -- I agree that many articles about fictional characters are absolute crap and are shittily referenced; that's a reason to excise this cruft, not maintain it. If you think this article meets an appropriate threshold for material about fictional characters, please compare it to e.g. Master Chief (Halo), Jabba the Hutt or James T. Kirk. The first two set a high bar as FAs, but the third isn't even GA status -- *that* is the standard that clearly establishes notability, not the sparse, passing references that constitute this "content." --EEMIV (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The scant development and reception presently in the article isn't enough to justify keeping the article. The development section in fact is composed of one quote which is already placed in the parent's article and which is more about the music anyway. The single sentence of the reception easily fits within the purview of the parent. There are two problematic articles here, not one: Let the story of this single character be told within the not-existing plot section of the parent (which should exist, mind you) and by the person this story is based on. This is a delete based on the article failing WP:PLOT; mind you though, there is a place in the parent article for some of that. 3-500 words should be about right. --Izno (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am hesitant to amend my view completely to a "merge and redirect" as asked to by A Nobody on my talk page. That was the gist of my comment, but a "merge and redirect" consensus might be closed as a "no consensus", which is arbitrarily... non-decisive. If the closing administrator is willing to close this as a "merge and redirect" (I do not mean here that the closing admin can only choose that), then consider my comment to be in favor of a merge and redirect. --Izno (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. The one things that is not appropriate is a delete, because we would certainly want a redirect. The nom does not even indicate otherwise. Normally I would advocate that we merge such articles into one for the characters, but it seems that there is sufficient to talk about for this one. Arrangement is optional; the key thing is keeping the content, and considering other nominations of combination articles by   other people (not including the nom of this article, BTW), the likely result will be the removal of content altogether, or the limitation to the bare name on a list. If there were any indication at all that the fiction minimalists (among whom I do not include EEMIV)were prepared to compromise, I would say those wanting comprehensive coverage of fiction should also.    DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - spans a few games, has real-life relevancy which is sourced (I see >2 sources)...and has been voted one of the 12 Best Female Characters in Video Games....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See REALPOOR IS A FAN BLOG. No reliability *at all*. We covered that in the last AfD. You might as well cite fan reviews too.. Really, Cas, this is a pure as the driven cruft. Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 23:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If its not used as a source in the article, then it being a blog matters not one whit. However, what is worth considering that it seems indicative of the cult following of the game and of the character.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cult following ... of the character"? Can you cite a single source that asserts, or even speculates, about such widespread adoration and interest? --EEMIV (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see a cult following, but mostly it's pretty local to this set of pages. There would be further bits of such fanish wankage out there on the wider interwebs, but, really, the barriers out there are low and any twit can post or write a 'review'. Shite dredged up by Google is largely meaningless. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I love cruft, so...er yeah, Jack. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Find and collaborate with people who love what you love. ;) Jack Merridew 07:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stuff fragmentation, I prefer unified knowledge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, or do a proper Merge and set a redirect per coverage granting notability per WP:GNG. Reviews? In context with the game itself? Naturally. But coverage is coverage. Though not all are in-depth, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Ars Technica, St Louis Post Dispatch, Real Poor Softpedia, CNet 1, Cnet 2, Cnet 3, Netjak, show coverage since 2000. Not just a blip on the scope. And then there are the numerous books covering the subject... also in context to the game. Yes, one need not agree, but per guideline, these show notability and the article meeting the requirements of WP:STAND. With respects to the nominator, that additional sources had not been added since the last AFD was a reason to fix it through normal editing, not delete it because it was not done within some unrequired and arbitrary deadline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Identifying the protagonist's name and then not discussing the character at all != notability of the character, It = read the press release or the manual and included the name. Can anyone offer multiple examples of significant coverage? Passing references, even times 1,000, != significant coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't play the game nor do I care about it. Per guideline, "number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources", and [Manon Batiste] "need not be the main topic of the source material". Yes, significant coverage is always preferred, but if it is lacking, multiple less-than-in-depth coverages serve the same purpose as long as they are not a trivial mentions in a list or some such. A character repeatedly discussed in context with the game meets that criteria. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But, there's not even discussion. The name is mentioned, and the avatar immediately forgotten; the actual discussion in all of these reviews is on the plot, the controls, "the player"'s actions -- but, there's no discussion of the character itself. It really is just passing mentions of the name. Put in another way: all of these reviews would be just as clear and structured just the same if they replace the phrase "Manon Batiste" with "the player's character" or "the player" -- the "identity" of this construct is immaterial, and not subject to even passing, marginal discussion; it's just a name drop, and references to "the idea" of this character promptly evaporate. --EEMIV (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Patrick Klepek explains how "Gamers who played Medal of Honor will remember Manon, part of the French Resistance, who was an enormous help toward his efforts. Still set in the era of World War II, the year is 1940 and the German armies have overrun Manon's town. Attempting to survive with her brother and the few people still around in her town, Manon's best companion, her brother, is tragically killed during a routine raid to retrieve weapon supplies. Manon then sets out to meet up with her brother's contacts in order to fight against the Nazis. It will take all her strength and perseverance in order to move up the ranks in the OSS so that she can head back home and help in the liberation of her nation." See Patrick Klepek, "Review of Medal of Honor: Underground," Gaming Age (11/22/2000).  According to GamePro, Manon is a "young member of the French Resistance introduced as Jimmy Patterson's 'control' in the original Medal of Honor.  Set prior to the start of the original Medal of Honor game, Underground follows Manon's journey journey from a naive member of one of France's first resistance movements to that of a seasoned veteran recruited by the OSS who ultimately becomes a key figure in the Allied invasion at Normandy."  The "final mission has Manon return to Paris to assist in its liberation from German occupation.  See "Medal of Honor: Underground," GamePro (2009).  All of these are more than just passing mentions.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But those *are* just passing mentions: just a few sentences dredged up with Google that retell a bit of the game plot. We can not hang an article off such trivial coverage. This is an encyclopaedia that requires significant coverage in sources. The net volume of source material should outweigh the resultant article, not be unbalanced the other way by a factor of better than ten. Jack Merridew 23:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The weight given to particular details and sections is a matter of ordinary editing and so is quite irrelevant to a deletion discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I keep finding more out of universe information: Critic Ian Lace said of her theme: "One has to suppose that the main character of this new game, Manon, inspired by the exploits of Hélène Déschamps is French. Michael Ciacchino has created a theme for her that in its first few notes irresistibly makes me want to anticipate the old pop song, 'Arrivederci Roma' which I found disconcerting because she is French and so much of the action, particularly at the beginning and end, takes place in Paris." See Ian Lace, "Medal of Honor (Underground) CD Review," MusicWeb International(January 2001).  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Medal of Honor: Underground once again DGG said it better than me. Ikip 00:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. It's all said above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 12 facts from 12 sources or 12 facts from a 1 source are both the exact same depth of coverage based on my infinite knowledge of mathematics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is evidently notable as there are numerous high-quality sources for it such as A Parents Guide to Playstation Games. The renomination seems vexatious per WP:DEL and WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your so-called exemplar does not actually have an entry for the topic; it is (like all the other sources) a passing reference to the topic. --EEMIV (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a passing reference as the character is central to the game, not incidental. The level of coverage seems enough to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, really: look at it. The book mentions her, identifies that she makes pastries for the soldiers or something, and then moves on to describe the gameplay. It IDs the player's avatar and moves on. Protagonist or not, the character in none of these sources receives little more than fleeting name-confirmation. She really just doesn't matter at all. --EEMIV (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I already looked at it and am satisfied that the content is adequate for our purposes. There don't seem to be any pastries - perhaps you're seeing a different edition. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Noteable article which following improvements contains a good ammount of real world information on the character. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient sourced content to satisfy the GNG, and no significant justification given for revisiting the prior, extensively argued deletion discussion. We should have better things to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A fictionalized version of a notable WWII spy Hélène Deschamps Adams; this article adds to that one, and improves it.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 20:13, 27 December 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.