Keep One of little female video game producers sounds like reason enough to me. I would mark the article as a stub, though. --Mistermartin75 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable TV Presenter. Pumpmeup 10:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see how she's any different to every other minor TV presenter out there. No awards or anything to indicate that she stands out from the crowd. Lankiveil (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, subject has been the subject of multiple non-trivial news pieces due to her work as a producer of Assassin's Creed (and how she is one of the few high-placed women in a male-dominated field). I'll try to add some references before the discussion ends. -- Merope 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The mere fact that many people have felt it necessary to publicly accuse Raymond of being unimportant despite her role as developer, spokesperson for Ubisoft and pioneering public game industry figure suggests the opposite is true: Excellence and prominence, not lackluster acceptability, incite spirited scrutiny, and the gaming press has been full of that kind of scrutiny. (One example among many: Wired Magazine listed the backlash against Jade Raymond as one of "Game|Life's 10 Biggest Disappointments of 2007" [1].) As the Guardian UK reported, "A young woman becoming the face of a major project - the internet grappled with it, a misogynistic fringe group belittled it, but they were more than happy to write about it."[2] However, as of January 2008, the population affected by Raymond's presence is reported to be larger than the "fringe" suggested by the Guardian, and it does not necessarily consist of young males, as has been suggested: According to The Financial Post, Raymond is relevant because the average gamer is 39 years old, and 42% of active gamers are women: her presence in the industry is said to speak to them, not young males who find Raymond superficially attractive.[3] To be fair to that emerging demographic, the practical thing to do would be to put up an entry on Raymond but keep it free of simpering and slander, as mods/eds do with entries on people like Hillary Clinton and George Bush III. Elected politicians are included in Wikipedia whether or not members of the public consider them ineffective -- the responsibilities and achievement of winning an office guarantees their entries' relevance. The same is true here: Raymond helped to develop and spearhead a game with a major release. Even if Assassin's Creed had been a complete and utter failure, her role in the game's fate would have to be written about here. Besides, Wikipedia has entries on minor TV actors, junk foods, short-lived urban slang and text speak. None of these is particularly "notable" in the literal sense, but all are culturally noteworthy (which is perhaps what Wikipedia's use of notable sometimes means). Also: Notorious cases of defamation of character and verbal lynching (like the horrendous 2007 attacks on Raymond) are of particular relevance at this stage in the internet's development, as recent examples bear out (such as the case against Lori Drew after Megan Meier's suicide).[4] I note that Megan Meier has an entry on Wikipedia (as she should) despite her having achieved far less "of note" than Raymond: the issue of cyberstalking is central to her entry and highly relevant culturally. It would also be relevant to Raymond's entry (and story) as well. -- Sepium Gronagh (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith - it looks like this editor's just enthusiastic about the subject. I'll leave a message on his/her talk page to take it easier. Tony Fox(arf!) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be sockpuppetry? Lots of people only come here to to comment on one or two of the issues they're interested in. Being new doesn't mean that you can't have a good argument, either, and those are what we're obstensibly here to provide; I've seen anons blow veterans out of the water every now and then. --Kizor 22:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the bogus accusation of "sock-puppetry," I answer: Since when is a false and unverifiable accusation as to intent validated by negative spin on another user's posting frequency? As to the "purpose" of my account: I have written for academic presses for twenty years, have nothing to do with Raymond or Ubisoft personally, and have written and edited entries on Wikipedia before -- but if I did have a user name, it has long since been forgotten (reference to entries available to mods via PM or my email address, which is verified). In the interests of quid pro quo, Falcon9x5, what are your unstated motives for launching character attacks on a stranger posting a reasonable response (with references) on a discussion page for an online encyclopedia? Besides which, everyone who writes for Wikipedia began with one entry -- why are you not accusing them of "sock-puppetry" as well? -- Sepium Gronagh (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest: I merely skimmed over your comment, Sepium, but most of it seemed to be along the lines of merely being associated with notable subjects, which does not give something notability; I'm related to Vikings' Adrian Peterson, who is pretty notable, especially right now, but that doesn't allow me to have my own article, does it. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until you actually read my comment, you won't be able to summarize it. Development of a high-profile game, spokesperson for it and for the company that made it, singular target of sexual harassment in the game community and reported as such in the international press (see above) -- all of that might not make the subject important to every individual, but it does make the subject at least as culturally relevant as many others on Wikipedia. The entry should also address the very controversy that has many gamers protesting Raymond's relevance here and elsewhere -- if it's newsworthy enough to be covered in the press for two years (latest article I've seen: Financial Post, January 8), then it's in a different class of relevance than one's simply being a sports figure's brother (no disrespect intended). -- Sepium Gronagh (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, fair enough. If what you say is true and if the sources will actually be added to the article, then maybe it does need to exist. Crap, there are enough "Keep" votes up that it's probably going to be kept anyway. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 03:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable person within video gaming because of her role in Assassin's Creed and the television show. Sources exist on both. User:Krator (tc) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as nationally broadcast TV host and for her work with the video game. 23skidoo (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article as it is now does not verifiably assert Raymond's notability. - 68.79.5.64 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she's getting quite a bit of press, as evidenced by a quick Google News search: the first article to come up is a profile in the Financial Post specifically discussing her success in the industry. Here's an interview from 2004 in a German publication. Others discuss the game, her role in the game, and so on. It appears to me there's enough to provide a good basis for a solid article. Tony Fox(arf!) 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
