Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cortana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Majorly 11:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cortana

Cortana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Further, according to Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. It is very, very, unlikely that an article on a character of a computer game will be the the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works unless it is very, very famous. Perhaps some useful content of this article could be merged into the articles on Halo (video game series), but this topic is clearly not encyclopedic. As thus, I argue for the deletion of this - and similar article. Or perhaps transwikiing to some specialized wiki. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Incredibly strong keep Are you kidding? What does "indiscriminate collection of info" have to do with this. She's the second-most notable character in one of the biggest game franchises in the world. Cortana+Halo gets 240,000 Google hits. If you think an article needs sources, tag it with {{unreferenced}}, but don't mark something for deletion that is very clearly significant. -- Kicking222 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Far from. As a matter of fact, I have not made any mention of references or a lack thereof in my mention.
      The question is, how is she significant? Is she notable only because of her position as a character of Halo? That's notability by association, and on those grounds Jobjörn Folkesson could exist because I am related to Carolus Linnaeus - a quite far-fetched analogy but I do believe you see my point.
      Has she been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other as required by Wikipedia:Notability? Notice the stressing of subject here - that an publication dealing with Halo mentions Cortana doesn't do it.
      Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Cortana, although famous, is neither significant or notable except as for her position as character in a indeed very notable game. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't really understand your final argument; almost every video game character is notable only as a character in a notable video game, just as Holly Golightly is only notable for being a character in Breakfast at Tiffany's. What kind of added notability do you expect a game character to have? -- Kicking222 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — TKD::Talk 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Striking; see below. — TKD::Talk 03:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Merge and heavily condense up to List of Halo series characters for now, unless someone can provide some out-of-universe commentary about her. (As a note, given the popularity of the Halo series and the media hype leading up to the release of Halo 3 later this year, I wouldn't be surprised if such commentary does in fact exist; there is a cliffhanger at the end of Halo 2 that has been exacerbated by recent teaser trailers). As for the list itself, it does need cleanup, but at least the likelihood for encyclopedic coverage is greater with the broader subject. — TKD::Talk 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: wonderful suggestion. However, all Cortana-editors beware: blogs and forums are not non-trivial published works! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Halo series characters with whatever reliably-sourced info is necessary. Excessive coverage, no notability demonstrated in own right. GassyGuy 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per GassyGuy. I don't see how a character in a game franchise can be a priori notable. If the character hasn't been talked about separately by reliable, non-trivial third-party sources, the character isn't notable. After all, it's just a game. --Charlene 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Halo series characters per TKD. A major character in the game, true, but not notable outside it. Tevildo 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is also not paper. You may as well attempt to delete the article on Jean-Luc Picard. It's not like anyone is going to type in Cortana and expect some jurisprudence expert, and even then, that's what dab pages are for. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • A red herring! Well, two wrongs doesn't make a right. If this one succeeds, you can be sure there's only a matter of time before I'll come to the Star Trek articles - most of them belong on Memory Alpha. However, it should be duly noted that I do believe Jean-Luc Picard has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cortana is mentioned in independent game reviews, eg [1] and [2]. An NPR review called "Sequel to Video Game 'Halo' Debuts" also discussed Cortana. Cortana is enough of an archetype to be mentioned even in reviews of other games, eg [3]. Gimmetrow 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Mentioned, not subject of. The first two deal with Halo (video game series) - indeed a notable subject! They merely mention Cortana as part of the Halo (video game series). The latter mentions Cortana when comparing another video game character to her, but does nothing more - only her name is mentioned (twice). No description, no context, not even a reference to the game - for all we know, that just might another Cortana! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: And yet, Cortana is notable enough to mention. That "context" is not given in the last reference is a fairly strong argument for notability in itself; it says a character in some other game functions as a Cortana. If I said a character functioned as an "uncle tom" or a "falstaff" I wouldn't need to explain what works of fiction I was referencing. Gimmetrow 04:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unreferenced, unverifiable, and not notable. "A topic is notable" - per WP:N - "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." This has not; Gimmetrow's "references" are simply namechecks, not even trivial. Nothing to merge, but could be redirected per Gassyguy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The reviews demonstrate that Cortana is significant to the storyline, and that the character is used as a reference point to describe other fictional characters. WP:FICT supports a separate article for major characters in a work of fiction, if otherwise the article on the main work would become too long. List of Halo series characters, with its current summary style, is 41k (37k prose). Gimmetrow 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - First of all, current lack of sourcing is NOT a reason to delete an article. I would also like to point out that per policy, items such as the Halo novels are intrisically self-referencing (I.E. they ARE a notable, verifiable source in and of themselves). The only qualifier is whether or not the work passes WP:NOTE, and any who would like to dispute the notability of the Halo series may feel free to try. Also, per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) it should be noted that major characters in works spanning multiple titles often get their own articles, such as Harry Potter (character) and Anakin Skywalker. Any information which could be merged would be needlessly repeated multiple times across a variety of articles including both the games and the novels. With all of that said, I would like to point out that this article does need a lot of work and most of the information here does enter the realm of fancruft. I would change my own vote to a firm Keep if the article could be better cited and made more encyclopedic. Cheers, Lankybugger 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, or, failing that, merge.--HisSpaceResearch 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong KeepArticle may need work, but this character is easily the second most important (after the Master Chief, actually she may be more important) in the series and spans all of the titles. Not all characters need their own pages but this one certainly does. Daniel J. Leivick 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per principle and as per Gimmetrow. I can certainly help with cleanup, but it deserves its own article. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I know a game guide when I see it (I assume that is what the nominator means when citing WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE) - this is not one. At worst, it is a story spoiler. I can't imagine why there are any notability concerns. We are talking about the main supporting character of a multi-award winning game with sales of nearly 15 million, not some individual generic soldier in a mediocre FPS with a few hundred thousand sales. And as Gimmetrow says, Cortana has been the subject of non-trivial published works. Han Solo is a main supporting character, but I don't see his article being deleted any time soon. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep important characters from important fiction. — brighterorange (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, Derktar 06:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Merge - Some info to a Halo characters list. There really doesn't need to be this much info about her on Wikipedia. Most of the article is summary of the Halo series and various quotes. Wickethewok 07:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding the objcetions raised above during my sleep:
    The first line of WP:FICT is as follows: Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. I suppose we can conclude that Cortana is a "major character" - even though the dialogue is quite sparse and that she is NEVER seen in actual gameplay (only in cutscenes, right?). Comparing her to Han Solo, star wars hero spanning three successful feature films and the subject of many many comics, is quite wrong though. But rest assured, I will come to him too - and Jean-Luc Picard mentioned above.
    The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) discusses how an article on said major character should be treated. It makes some points I'd like to raise here:
    • In particular, plot synopses and character biographies should be kept terse.
    • Articles should strive to describe the subject matter related to the real world.
    • The article should contain no original research
  • If all the above points are considered, there is simply no need for an article about Cortana, as it can never ever be more than a stub. You see, even if the the primary notability criterion is ignored (the one requiring multiple, non-trivial sources dealing with the subject, you know...), it can under secondary guidelines not be written lengthier than a stub as
    • In-universe prose should be kept terse - at the length of a stub, I suppose.
    • Although the article should strive to describe the subject matter related to the real world, there is nothing to the describe as Cortana has no relation to the real world, unless
    • Wikipedia:Original research is applied. Sure, it might be very very tempting to fill up half of the article with a comparison of Cortana and contemporary in-real-life artificial intelligences, but fact remains: there are no Wikipedia:Reliable sources able to provide a basis for such a comparison - or any other out-of-universe analysis.
  • As thus, we might - and should treat Cortana in the same way Alyosha Karamazov is treated in the example given in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Alyosha Karamazov is a major character from the novel The Brothers Karamazov. He is covered comprehensively in the Brothers Karamazov article, and the Alyosha Karamazov link redirects there for convenience..
    My stance remains: deletion and redirect to Halo (video game series).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobjörn (talk • contribs)
      • The three bullet points mentioned above are part of an draft rewrite of the WP:WAF guideline that has not yet achieved consensus. The stable version of WP:WAF does not contain these specific texts. I agree that "out of world" writing should be emphasized, however the difference between "in world" and "out of world" writing is style-based. (WP:WAF is a syle guideline.) Thus Cortana is a "SMART" artificial intelligence that was constructed from the flash-cloned brain of Dr. Catherine Elizabeth Halsey should be rewritten along the lines of: Cortana is a fictional AI in the Halo universe; The second cutscene in the first Halo game describes the character's origin from a cloned brain... Unless the content is "original research" it can usually be rephrased in an "out of world" style. Gimmetrow 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Damn, people re-writing the MOS while I am reading it :( Oh well. It doesn't really invalidate my point - out-of-universe analysis and prose on Cortana must necessarily be WP:OR except for the OoU depictions of in-universe Cortana, as the primary notability criterion of WP:N - requiring that the subject be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third-party sources - cannot be met. So: while failure to meet the primary notability criterion may according to some not be reason for deletion, the very same failure concludes that an article on Cortana must be either 100% depiction of her in-universe appearances (even if written in OoU style) must be Wikipedia:Original Research. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Why must any OoU prose necessarily be WP:OR? Who created the character, how the depiction was decided, who did the voice, other games the character appears in or was speculated to appear in, the role of this type of character in games, are all OoU statements. See also gamespot, which treats Cortana with more than a passing mention, and igniq. The character is a major character in a notable work of fiction, that should be enough to establish notability. Whether it has a separate article or not is then a question of length and summary style. Given that the "list of characters" article alone is 37k of prose and is already in summary style for a lot of characters, it's difficult to imagine merging this. Gimmetrow 04:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Note that the same version you quoted (granted, not a consensus version) also said: "Major characters in a fictional work or series of works are typically notable." Interesting, no? Gimmetrow 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • No, not at all interesting - the only major character in the Halo video game series is Master Chief. It's a game, not a movie or something. Cortana's participation is limited to a bunch of cutscenes.
          To adress your first point: the gamespot article does indeed not contain merely a passing mention of Cortana - it rather contains three passing mentions of Cortana. Hardly enough for the primary criterion. The iqniq "article" then? Well, it says: "Cortana is conspicuously the only character moving." and links to a picture where the silhouettes of the Dead or Alive characters are featured, all still, except one female, who is jumping up and down causing her breasts to wobble. Iqniq jokingly(?) suggests that this is Cortana as a guest character in DoA. Are you seriously trying to claim that as a serious source? Yes, I can see it in the article: The gaming website Iqniq has on one occasion put forward claims that Cortana will be featured as a guest character in Dead or Alive, equipped with a large pair of bouncing breasts. It's so encyclopedic it hurts!
          Furthermore - List of Halo series characters could, and should, be severely trimmed. Even if I could perhaps some time accept Cortana as notable, I will NEVER accept Admiral Whitcomb, Gunnery Sergeant Pete Stacker, Kalmiya, Endless Summer, Yayap The Grunt or any of the countless COMPLETELY USELESS characters listed in there. With those removed, and the so-called major characters left in, the article will be of perfect size - even including Cortana. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Now, this is progress. Iqniq never claims she would be so equipped, so that part would be WP:OR. All other mocking aside, that the Cortana character was considered for appearing in the other game would be legitimate "out of world" content for an article. As for the other characters you mention, you may very have a point, but this is not an AfD on Tartarus (Halo). Gimmetrow 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Great thing. That means we have found one non-trivial published work from a source that is reliable and independent of the subject itself - as the guideline I'm invoking requires several, find one more and write them into the article. Then I might consider withdrawing my nomination. (I am not kidding.)
              Good thing you appreciate my point on the List of Halo series characters. But if that list is severely trimmed, would not Cortana fit into it, making Cortana redundant? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Did you see the digging I did below, Job? Either way, you cant just arbitrarily say that Master Chief is the only major character. Halo isn't a story about fighting aliens; end; it's got its own plot twists, background, et al. Cutscenes are essentially movies, and there are plenty- you can't be saying that video games do not have the depth of movies. Cortana's participation is limited to a bunch of cutscenes- um... she gives you direction throughout the entire game... In any case, the Master Chief barely speaks five lines, (Two Betrayals is him at his wordiest), so your definition of 'major' seems limited to if he's a protagonist. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I didn't notice those, actually. It is a shame that the first one is a blog, the three following are from some sort of forum, and the last one comes from Bungie.com. (I'll comment further on them below.)
                  But as you say, either way, my argumentation isn't really based on whether Cortana and/or Master Chief are major characters or not (as I see it, the plot IS a story of fighting aliens), but on whether an article on Cortana is warranted per the "primary notability criterion" (the one requiring multiple non-... you know the rest). This AfD has for my part raised doubts over whether the "primary" of "primary notability criterion" actually means it is the PRIMARY notability criterion or if it's just there to make it sound cool. (Like the Prime Directive which undeniably sounds cool. An article which by the way needs some sources too. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The last two paragraphs of this gamespot article quote CJ Cowan (cinematics director):
            • Following the abrupt end of Halo 2, it was unclear if Cortana had been corrupted by the Gravemind or had been destroyed altogether. "Given the variety of character and story arcs at the end of Halo 2, we wanted to boil down our announcement to a few key threads," he said. "Cortana and the Chief being a galaxy apart is a situation we haven't seen before, and is something that is a powerful component to Halo 3. We are using her transmissions in the demo to give the viewer a few subtle clues to her situation and state of mind, without revealing any specifics we want to save for the game itself."
          • That seems to me a non-trivial "out of world" reference too. Gimmetrow 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Indeed. Throw it into the article, will you? Now, good night - really, I need to sleep some time. :O Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because she is really pretty! And notable! 172.143.75.9 11:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've been waiting for this one! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Cleanup - by my estimation, Cortana in and of herself is a major character within Halo itself and there is enough information in regards to her to warrant a separate character article. It does warrant some cleanup and sources, but deletion? No. Peptuck 21:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As of this point, we have twelve Keeps (one of them mine), three Merges, two Deletes, and two Redirects (I think? I'm typing this in the editing page right now, its hard to check....) Thus far the general consensus is Keep, though that may change later on. Peptuck 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Another keep argument not addressing the argument raised by me. "Enough information" does not warrant an article - with that as policy, I'd write Jobjörn Folkesson right away. What's needed here is an establishment of notability. All I pledge for is TWO third-party sources discussing Cortana (and not Halo in general). Pleeaaassseee give me two of those and I'll retract my nomination. <puppy eyes here> Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Please let me know when you write your WP article about yourself and it comes up for deletion so that I can say something like "keep because he's really pretty and there's so much information and it's not hurting anyone!!! Plus, we have articles on Carola Häggkvist and August Strindberg and they're both Swedish people, so how can we delete this one???" - GassyGuy 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
          • You can be damned sure I'll notify you! I aim to get notable in, perhaps, 30 years or so... During that time, perhaps Cortana will get notable too? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: You're requirement of sources 'discussing Cortana (and not Halo in general)' is frankly absurd. How do you talk about the character without mentioning the work the fictional character is in? No review or analysis of any kind does that. You're setting a ridiculously specific bar here. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, the primary notability criterion - repeated countless times above - does specificially state that that is required. However, you are skewing my words slightly - I did not say that I wanted a source discussing Cortana without mentioning Halo, I want a source discussing Cortana, not Halo. I want a source where Cortana is the subject, not Halo. I can imagine an analysis on video game artificial intelligences, for example - if noone has ever written one, it's like the perfect kind of crap a MIT student could write and get published! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • There's plenty of non-published online discussions, et al, [4][5][6][7][8] and more (these are first page google hits), but lets face it; in the way of publishing, five years is not a lot of time and there have been relatively few AIs in games (Durandal, Cortana, 343GS... Gary from RvB... I got nothing else.) Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Five years SHOULD be enough to establish notability. If not, delete and re-write when notability has been established. While it may be true that Cortana is the subject of a lot of fan discussion, that doesn't establish it's notability, as the notability guideline explicitly requires published works. See also WP:RS, by the way. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
          • We're talking about video games here. Plenty of people think that they're either frivolous pursuits or maniacal machinations to teach kids to kill. Either way, little in the way of published gaming literature has ever been published, 'cepting the aformentioned Jack Thompson-esqe stuff. I mean, the stuff I can find is all about great games in general [9] or stuff about the industry [10]. Point is, most of the market finds it online. And there isn't a single article or book solely on the Master Chief either, but you're not talking about deleting it, are you? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
          • A reliable source does not necessarily mean a printed source. We've got wired.com, [11] and literally thousands of computer/game magazines, websites, etcetera. And David - you bet I'll get to Master Chief (Halo) if this AfD results in deletion or merging. Somehow, however, I seriously doubt that :/ Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Don't worry, Job, I understand how you feel with this- there are guys accusing me of being an anti-manga US-supremist and an Afd troller because I nominated some Gundam articles. Only difference is that they can't come up with keep arguments except for personal attacks, and those articles are bound to be deleted, but I support you- well, not really, but how about saying I empathize with you? Good night, Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Yay, no hard feelings then. Good we've got mutual assurance on that part. Now, I bid ye good night - it's 3:41 AM and I've got another day tomorrow! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'm not a halo fan, I've barely played a few hours at my friends house and even I've heard about her. The don't find the Nom's arguments to delete the article persuasive given that this is a main character in a major franchise. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Well, I am a Halo fan. That she is a main character in a major franchise doesn't make her meet the primary notability criterion: although the major franchise indeed does. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has zero non-trivial third party sources as far as I can see, but that is really a silly rule anyhow, isn't it? Silensor 03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Well, that's officially the greatest point brought up so far in this discussion. WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V are all silly rules, let's ignore them! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia doesn't have the limitations of a paper encyclopedia, and this article is useful. Jlsilva 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Useful"? What do you mean, "useful"? Even if background story on a video game character could in any way be considered useful (it can't. It's useless), articles like Jobjörn Folkesson would be far more useful. I could write some information about myself there, and hey, when I'm out and someone wants my number or something, I could just say "Oh, look me up on Wikipedia!" The person would then 1) be amazed that I have my own wp article, and 2) not have to remember all those digits of my phone number. Now THAT is what I call useful! Nevertheless, Jobjörn Folkesson is still a redlink, and I intend it to continue to be a redlink. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Major character in a major work. Maybe you could trim it down and merge it to a list of Halo characters, but AfD really isn't the place to do it. And personally, I'd rather have a handful of character articles like these than hard to navigate lists like List of Final Fantasy X characters. I personally think that List of Halo series characters needs a lot of trimming work first in clearing it up. - hahnchen 18:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • A handful? There's more of those than there are articles on African cities! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you just making shit up? Or are you being purposely obtuse? I prefer Category:Halo characters over an List of Halo series characters. Although it is at least more relevant than your Carolus Linnaeus mention earlier. - hahnchen 23:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • "Obtuse"? After looking that up (I am not a native english speaker), I am wondering whether that is a personal attack or not. Whatever the case, no, I am not making shit up, and I am not being obtuse - not on purpose, not at all. While the Carolus Linnaeus argument is indeed quite exaggerated, the exaggeration was used to highlight the obvious flaws in the reasoning my argument replied to: namely that just because something is associated with something notable, doesn't mean it is notable. I am related to Carolus Linnaeus - but I don't claim that as making me notable, newsworthy, famous or whatever.
          As for the comment on categories versus lists, I don't get the point. It was apparently a reply on my statement, which in turn was a reply on the suggestion that there were only a handful of video game character biographies. Category:Computer and video game characters is not a handful. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
          • That you thought the "handful" was a reference to every single article in Category:Computer and video game characters, shows that you misunderstood the point. Cortana is a major character in a major work. - hahnchen 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Then, instead of calling me obtuse, please clarify the point. I did however not believe that his use of "handful" referred to every single article in Category:Computer and video game characters, but indeed rather to those in Category:Halo characters. My point, however, was that this is hardly an isolated problem: there are lots and lots of articles like this, most of them even LESS notable than Cortana - although that is merely possible at all. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, redirect to main game. I see no evidence of articles concentrating on the individual character, as opposed to the game.Eludium-q36 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge per TKD. TJ Spyke 01:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Weak keep or merge and redirect — TKD::Talk 07:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)) Keep. Using Google Scholar, I found a couple of extensive scholarly articles (albeit in foreign languages) analyzing Halo: Combat Evolved, its plot, and Cortana's role in it. Be warned; these are both PDFs. [12], [13]. If someone can read sufficiently well in these languages, these papers should be very useful not only for Cortana, but also for much of Category:Halo. — TKD::Talk 03:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I do know swedish, and as thus I read through the first one. Sadly, it does not discuss Cortana's involvement in the plot: Cortana's role in the essay consists of a bunch of plot summaries for 1) the game, 2) every single level in the game and 3) herself. While the third one, the description of Cortana, could provide some interesting insight, it does not (my translation): Pillar of Autumn's artificial intelligence. The AI runs the ship and navigation per the captain's orders. Takes the form of a hologram picturing a woman with short blonde hair in a circuit board suit. She can enter all computer systems you run into in the game and take care of information. She works both as character in the movie sequences and guide during the gaming sequences. By communicating with other entities and actively seeking information that she then shares with the gaming character she often works as a narrator. The only thing remotely interesting in there is the last sentence. It could very well be included in a shortened List of Halo characters article.
      Hey, it turns out the second one is danish. As a Swede, I can read danish to some extent. The analysis is practically the exact same as the one in Swedish, and the Cortana part reads (my translation): ~Cortana is an artificial intelligence, used to run the respective systems of Pillar of Autumn. In addition to this, she is an important part of the ship's navigation system, and it is the Master Chief's task to make sure that she doesn't fall into enemy hands. While this doesn't contain anything of use, it does later on say that Cortana is related to the narrating AI of bungie game Marathon - the only thing of interest to us in this essay.
      Well, my conclusion remains: this article should be deleted and interesting contents should be inserted into the list of halo characters article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the translations and analysis. Bear in mind, though, that even plot summary in secondary sources is useful; many times, we have to rely on the exception in WP:NOR that allows for the use of primary sources for uncontroversial, descriptive facts. And, even though Wikipedia is not a collection for plot summaries, inclusion of some plot summary is necessary for a comprehensiveness — at least, this is the interpretation held by most people who frequwently participate in evaluating featured article candidates. I don't really have an objection to a merge, though. As a note, though, if you do favor a merge, bear in mind that "delete and merge" violates the terms of the GFDL, in that any text merged needs to have its edit history kept somewhere; this is usually done through keeping the old article as a redirect to the target. "Merge and redirect" is fine. If this is closed as kept, there isn't really a proscription against continuing discussion of "separate article versus merger" on talk pages. — TKD::Talk 04:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia procedures are odd. As I find it hard to believe any consensus would ever arise on deleting the article WITHOUT including Cortana in the list of characters article, "merge and redirect" is my desired outcome. To me, deleting does in practice mean setting up a redirect - if nothing else so for preventing the article's recreation. Such is the case with recently AfDed Motor Kombat, for example. But whatever. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If I had the time or inclination, I could dig through sites like [14] and pull up a slew of English Cortana articles as well. Peptuck 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Rampancy.net may be a reasonable source for some content within a Halo-related article, however it is pretty much a pro-Bungie site so it doesn't really qualify as a 3rd party reference of the subject's notability. Independent reviews and (from what I can tell) the PDFs above, are 3rd party references. Gimmetrow 04:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Isn't rampancy.net a fan site? — TKD::Talk 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Whatever the case, I strongly doubt rampany.net qualifies as a WP:RS. It's front page reads like a blog - complete with postings by an obscure alias and Digg links. The rest of it is forums and other user-submitted articles - and even though I can't find anyone actually dealing with Cortana I doubt you could call those "non-trivial published works". Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can't most of this info be compressed and placed into the "Halo characters" article? BishopTutu 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yes, especially if the Halo characters article is clean up. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, why can't we do so? BishopTutu 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep assuming cleanup, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is focused, not indiscriminate.DGG 03:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. If these squarepants characters deserve an article, a major halo character that has appeared in novels definitely does. John Vandenberg 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Well, as said above - two wrongs doesn't make a right. I suggest you instead go ahead and nominate the squarepants for deletion too - they sure do deserve it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, right? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. Cortana is the most important and developed character in the HALO series, second only to the Master Chief. The article could most definitely use a cleanup, but other than that, it deserves to stay.Ghetto Gandalf 09:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Have you even READ the discussion above? WHY does it deserve to stay? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. Per Above. Extremely notable main character, however cleanup is necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuillOmega0 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Comment: Again, have you even bothered to read the above discussions? Perhaps you could then provide some more input than "I like it"? How is she "extremely notable"? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: I'd assume she'd be notable due to the fact that she is one of the primary characters in both the Halo video games, and Halo novels. And yes I did read all of the above conversation. QuillOmega0 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: even though I still argue she is not notable at all, I do think even you must agree "extremely notable" is something of an overstatement. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment: How is she not notable? She's not a character you see or hear only two times during Halo, or Halo 2, unlike Sergeant Major Avery J. Johnson in Halo 1. I will admit I may have made an overstatement, but my point still stands that she is still a notable character. I however give you kudos in defending your AfD gallantly. I will also make another point that the Cortana article, as stated previously does need to be cleaned up and sourced, but this is not a valid point to delete it. QuillOmega0 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment: As I suppose you have read above, I will not go on in great length as to why she is not notable - or, rather, not notable enough for an own article. But basically, it lies in the requirement of non-trivial third-party sources discussing the subject in question as specified in the "primary notability criterion" of WP:N (and WP:FICT, to some extent). As it has been proven (see discussions above) that an article on Cortana can't go beyond plot summary (or WP:OR), I think she would be better off included in the List of Halo series characters, and that article to be severely trimmed (as suggested on that article's talk page, yielding no results). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep — Passes Notability on its own. Major character in the Halo series. I'd say merge, but there is enough information to keep this. Wizardman 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe that this is either never going to reach consensus, or it's going to end up a weak keep. Personally, I feel that in the context of this being a video game, it is unlikely that there are going to be professional, scholastically written articles like you seem to want in order for it to be kept. This notwithstanding, main characters are allowed an article if putting them in the main article would make it too long. I disagree with the concept that since this is a video game, there can't be main characters besides the playable characters. One, there are novels in which she is a main character. Two, video games can be considered interactive movies, and the Halo series is a great argument for that. It is a classic sci-fi action trilogy, with a plot, antagonists, protagonists, cliffhangers, and epic battles, and Cortana is one of the characters that holds the plot together. WP:FICT allows us to give main characters a page even without meeting the general notability guidelines, and we're allowed to use the primary sources of the games and novels to source this where other sources miss things. Also, I feel that this nomination is on the borderline of being a WP:POINT nomination. I can understand nominating a character that only shows up in one game and isn't as important to the plot like Tartarus, but Cortana is one of the main characters of a massively popular video game trilogy. As for print sources, Cortana has a whole page write-up in one of my official game manuals if we absolutely need a print source, circling back to one of my reasons for keep: it's ok for writings not to focus on her as long as they include enough information on her from which to write an article. J0lt C0la 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Who has said anything about print sources? Third-party, published, sources.
      Uh, I don't have time to argue against most of the recent arguments now, so I'll guess I'll just have to let them pass unchallenged. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I vote for keeping it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.14.191.222 (talk • contribs).

  • Comment: Let me add that I do not like using Wikipedia's notablity criteria for fictional characters; it is a very common justification to branch off important fictional characters from otherwise bloated lists precisely because information about these characters is extensive and including it, even in condensed format, would unnecessarily draw out the lists. This is commonly accepted in Wikipedia. How many scholarly third-party sources can we find for David Palmer or Liquid Snake, for example? Peptuck 04:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum I've looked over the WP:Notability guidelines, and I have noticed a very important part of the guideline that I want to address. Specifically, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).

I believe we should be referring to guidelines on fictional characters as grounds for suitability for deletion. Specifically, Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. Therefore, I propose that this debate should be shifted to "Is Cortana a major enough character within Halo to warrant an article of her own?" as per these established guidelines regarding fictional material. Peptuck 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC) -Additionally, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) acceptable sources for fictional characters include:

  • Annotated books or screenplays;
  • Behind-the-scenes documentaries;
  • Critical reviews;
  • Distribution materials;
  • DVD commentary tracks;
  • Interviews with creators, actors, etc.;
  • Press coverage;
  • Production diaries;
  • Sales figures;
  • Scholarly introductions to editions of the work;
  • Texts from fields like cultural studies, film studies, etc.;
  • Third-party analyses; and
  • Websites or blogs run by the creators.

Scholarly third party analyses only make up one of many acceptable sources for fictional material. With these facts and elements of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding fictional material, I reaffirm my position to oppose deletion of this article, at least on the grounds Joborn has cited. Peptuck 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Notability must be established by independent third-party sources. If notability of a subject is established independently, self-published sources may be used for content in an article about the subject. I think Cortana passes notability from third-party (non-Halo) sources. Gimmetrow 05:49, 16 January 2007 (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.