Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mui


 * 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, default to keep. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Mui
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm nominating this for exactly the same reason as the Mattias Nilsson article: it's original researching, and a retelling of the plots for the games. That's really all that can be said about it cut and dried. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for exactly the same reason:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction. Either is fine with me. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to game article -- although I'd instead suggest waiting for the Mattias Nilsson AfD to conclude and slap the same outcome on these articles, rather than wait 10 days days. (The single persistently-restoring editor indicated on one of these two articles' talk pages his willingness to abide by that decision.) Oh, well. --EEMIV (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to sound like Dr. Nobody, but I just migrated some of his content from the Mui article to the game article. I don't pretend to whip around his "you can't merge and delete!" trumpet, but it that's worth noting, there it is. --EEMIV (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your action seems improper as you failed to give credit to the true author of the work that you copied by cut/paste. This is a breach of our licence.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops; [genuine] apologies. Looks like it's been fixed, though. --EEMIV (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as unoriginal research, i.e. recurring playable character from two mainstream games is covered in multiple sources independent of the games. No reason why in even the extreme worst case scenario this article would be redlinked rather than redirected.  Incidentally, when asked, "There's three characters in the game: are they all as important as each other? We've only really seen Mattias and his snazzy beard so far," the developers explained, "they're all as important as each other. There's been no grand plan, but you've probably seen more Mattias because he has a very distinctive look to him and has sort of become the poster boy for Mercs 2. But you can play the entire game as any of the characters and all are equally powerful and cool and have their unique attitude and presentation and cinematics. It's an equal opportunities experience for the three characters. Mattias has certainly had more than his share of the limelight, but you should like that; we're featuring the European guy!"  References are pretty easy to find and I noticed a number of interviews beyond what I added (sorry I cannot do them all myself tonight as I have been taking care of a family member this past week).  Definite potential here and beyond User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable in that this character has attracted some attention outside of fansites.  Lots of good references already that we would at worst merge per WP:PRESERVE, although it seems definitely likely that we can get at least a DYK out of this one with some colloborative effort.  Another possibility would be a character list of all three playable characters for which you can cite some development information from such interviews as this, where Scott Warner, Lead Designer, explains, "The three main player characters, Mattias Nilsson, Jennifer Mui and Chris Jacobs are all returning from the original Mercenaries....At their core each of three player characters are mercenaries at heart: they’re here to make money, operate outside of the rules of engagement and use their specialized skills to get the job done. This said, each is motivated by a different calling in life and this part of their character will inform how the story plays out, how other characters interact with them and how the world responds to their actions."  Happy Holidays!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is one's a block quote and the other is a response to it. The kicker is there's no visible reliability to the first quote even: it's written by a contributor to the site even, and not a regular staff member. That doesn't fly as "reliable, third party coverage". I wish it did, because I welcome good articles on female characters. But it looks more like a mountain out of a molehill.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are so many hits in reviews, interviews, and previews that we can confirmed that this character is covered in numerous secondary sources and that she is a playable character in two major games, i.e. we have clear reason for either further expansion or arguably mergeing. There is however no need/reason to redlink.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable. The majority of refs are even from sites that can be publicly edited! OR spotted as well. Ryan 4314  (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced, and too big to merge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The characters are notable enough to be mentioned in all the game reviews. Plenty of information to fill an article.  No sense in destroying it.   D r e a m Focus  20:22, 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 magazine, for example, is not a mere website and certainly not something anybody can edit.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:43, 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)
 * If your claim is that the refs are from wikiesque public cites, then that claim is simply not true. IGN and 1UP.com are reliable secondary sources and print magazines certainly are as well.  "Notability" is subjective, but factually the information is verified in at least a couple issues of GameAxis Unwired, which is a print secondary source.  Sincrely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:03, 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 three games that appear on multiple systems, two strategy guides, and even a graphic novel who is familiar to millions of people worldwide is notable by an reasonable interpretation of that term.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not even "quite good": 1, 2 + 5 are just confirmations of the voice actor. 3 + 4 just confirm her appearance in the games. 6, 7 is a specialised source, not "independent of subject" (of course an interview with a game development staff member would mention her, it does not represent coverage in the media however.) 8 + 9 are game reviews that don't even mention that character by name, 8 isn't even correct! (does not mention Britpop) 10 is a BLOG! 11 is just a picture. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These out citations in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject are more than enough to justify inclusion on Wikipedia. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDB + blogs are not "reliable" sources. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources found on Google News and Google Books are. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only 2 refs from Google, both name-checks. Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reality is of course multiple references from Google that go beyond names to address the development and reception of the character. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reality is only 2 refs from Google, both used in the first sentence of the article, just to confirm appearance in game i.e. "Name-check". Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These numerous appearances that provide critical commentary on this notable character in what is admittedly multiple reliable sources is why this article will be kept. But anyway, as it has already been merged and therefore cannot be deleted per the GFDL, we are just going in circles here.  You are not going to persuade me that such a notable and verifiable figures is not worthwhile.  So, that's that, I guess.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As evidenced by me, the lack of any good refs proves this subject is non-notable. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, the majority of participants in this discussion correctly identify that the subject is notable due to numerous good references available for this subject as confirmed both in the article, but especially all the ones not yet incorporated into it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt they will, especially not on your promise to "add better refs later". You've basically just conceded that the refs don't indicate notability. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You still have yet to present any actual reason for deletion. If anything, you have acknowledged above that this character is indeed notable as pretty much everyone else believes as well and as has been demonstrated through the addition of reliable secondary sources demonstrating the character's notability.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reason for deletion: Article's subject non-notable, poor referencing indicates lack of notability. I've stated this 4 times above. Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, because the article's subject is notable, good referencing indicates notability. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * merge into a combination article as usual for characters. That is, merge a very substantial amount of content, though possibly not quite as substantial as the present separate article. The virtue of a merged list over separate articles is that it can decrease repetition somewhat.  Where characters take part in more than one work, a separate combination article them is much more useful and non-duplicative than merging to the  main article of each of the separate works. Anyway, nominating for deletion implies a desire to not even have a redirect, and I challenge the nom for what he would not even want that.    DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article contains numerous sources and so the nomination's claim that this is original research seems to be quite false. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, who's nailed it. The usual suspects are unconvincing. giantbomb.com, indeed. Jack Merridew 06:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the three sentences that actually follow WP:WAF - "Development" and "Reception" - to the respective sections in the game article. Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 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.