Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mattias Nilsson (Mercenaries)


 * 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. There are two trains of thought here: 1) the references are not enough to satisfy notability, 2) that the few references by USA Today, etc. are indications that it is notable. In this AfD, there does not seem to be a clear consensus as to which is the better option, so I'm closing this as NC. ( X! ·  talk )  · @728  · 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattias Nilsson (Mercenaries)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Combination of original research, plot summary and gameguide trivia. No assertion of real-world development or real-world treatment --EEMIV (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial fancruft/clutter at best. It's a very brief video game character that can be described in the Mercenaries game articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into a new article, Mercenaries (series) along with the other two protagonists, Jennifer Mui and Chris Jacobs. Incidentally, article is more in need of cleanup than deletion.  Nomination mentions issues with the article's content rather than its notability.  Leaning towards a merge, as the nominator is probably correct in that the three protagonists can't stand out on their own, but may fit well into a series article.  I'd also be willing to Userfy this article to me for the proposed merge.  --Teancum (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For some reason, my deletion rationale critiques style (and failing WP:WAF isn't grounds for deletion) rather than my real gripe when I nominated articles for deletion, including this one: failure to assert and substantiate a notability claim. I must have just skipped a sentence or something. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although there are some unreliable references in there, like the official bio and IMDB, the fact there are several sources left, suggest they meet WP:GNG. Also, it's not some random character it's a main playable character, one of only three in the game. -- Mgm|(talk) 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken a closer look at the third-party sources in the article. Setting aside IMDb and the publisher's own page, both the Giant Bomb site and the first IGN link are in-universe summaries that merely regurgitate plot; they are sources of gameguide trivia. Neither the character's first nor last name appear in either of the two reviews. Somehow I overlooked making this assertion in my AfD rationale, so I'll make it here: the article fails to assert, let alone substantiate, a claim of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think this article has enough sources to support itself. The character's personality, skills, appearence and biography are all references in the sources. --WölffReik (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but none of them are out-of-universe, reliable third-party sources with a significant focus on the character, and that is the primary concern. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing admin, please take a gander at the above editor's edit contributions and the anonymous IPs on this page. This editor appears also to edit anonymously under 90.208.53.16, 90.202.94.11, and 90.202.94.99. I doubt any of these !votes' perspectives will influence the delete and/or redirect outcome of this AfD, but just want to note the apparent attempt at vote-stacking. (Overlapping interest in fictional green berets/soldiers and martial artists, plus quick contributions to AfDs and category editing, across the four accounts leads me to this conclusion.) I've admonished the account-holder on its talk page re. subverting AfD process. --EEMIV (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree that his page has enough references to support its content. I also believe that the other Mercs characters also have enough sources. -- 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.53.16 (talk)  — 90.208.53.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep in mind that the other characters are irrelevant to this discussion, because their articles have no bearing whatsoever on this article. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not actually best to label this IP an SPA; it's almost certainly also 90.202.94.11 and 90.202.94.99, and has made a decent chunk of edits -- although, I think somewhere there's a whole separate set of language or suggestions about IP editors' contributions at AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. A character's in-universe biography does not establish their notability, nor does a review on the game they are characters in. Ultimately, the subject has not received significant media coverage from reliable third-party sources, and so does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I really don't see anything wrong with this article, or any of the other Mercs' characters. It seems to be in more need of a clean-up than a deletion or re-direct. -- 90.202.94.11 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides discounting IP !votes in general at AfD, note that this editor's contributions history and the contrib. history for the IP above make these editors almost certainly the same person. --EEMIV (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: After a thorough search through Google News and Google Books, I found only one quick bit in Wired that could be used for reception, and it's a small sentence at best. By himself, this character (and subsequently the other two related characters) don't stand apart from the game enough to warrant separate articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge' to Mercenaries (series)''. Edward321 (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - should be briefly summarized in the articles of the two games. Insufficient notability beyond the games. Marasmusine (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article itself and a search for sources produces nothing which demonstrates notability through multiple non-trivial sources which are reliable. Most of what's there is just plot summary, and while I'd support any character having an article should sources warrant it I think this is a case where there was no sourcing for a separate article. Someoneanother 21:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the additional cites and info are a step in the right direction, they don't come close to necessitating an article (even a group article for the three main characters, or a series article). The repetition of the games' plots still makes up the bulk of the article (and it is repetition, have a look at the other character articles, the same descriptions are repeated each time). Sorry, IMO the unsuitability of these characters for an article of any sort is only further demonstrated by the lack of out-of-universe information available. Someoneanother 21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge  into a character list, even though there are only 3 playable characters.  In any case, the one way of handling that is inappropriate is a delete, because a redirect would always be appropriate, since they are mentioned in the main article. Will those saying delete for this please also say why  a redirect would be improper? Unless they can, there is no reason for delete.    DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping anybody from creating a redirect aftwerwards, if one is wanted. If I was of the opinion that there was anything here to save then I'd have said redirect. I don't, hence didn't. Someoneanother 09:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To elaborate: the article is just repetition of the games' plots, in a separate wrapper, with a fair use image. It looks nice, obviously took time to put together, and it's a shame that it ends up here, but that doesn't change what it is or create uses for it. Someoneanother 10:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The dab text makes me doubt anyone will accidentally stumble into it. Mattias Nilsson certainly can get a hat tag pointing toward the game article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy back to original author. These obviously took some time and were written with care, so it may be the best option.  The article can incubate until it can be retooled and better sources found. --Teancum (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - regurgitation of primary source material from the game; grievously fails to provide evidence of notability in real world. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news for his name plus the game's title shows promising results.  USA Today calls him gaming's Rambo.   D r e a m Focus  20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * USA today mentions him and draws a Rambo image for the game in the lede...and then promptly doesn't mention him today. It is a passing and insignificant reference, and a mis-characterization (or a misunderstanding) to suggest this is somehow significant coverage. The GHits are all reviews of the game (save one list of neat characters), reinforcing the point that this character lacks significant coverage separate -- and notability -- from the game itself. --EEMIV (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It calls the character an action star comparable to Rambo and please notice that we have a separate article about the character John Rambo. This level of coverage is adequate to eliminate deletion as a sensible way forward. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It draws a very narrow comparison to Rambo: "the two action stars thrive in insanity and create chaos." It sets up the focus for the article. There's no suggestion anywhere that this swede is anywhere near as important as Rambo. I'm sure Rambo would agree with me. --EEMIV (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage in USA Today seems quite ample to establish notability. Such games are as big or bigger than movies nowadays so this character is like a movie star and so satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've missed it entirely; they're the new "gods" of a new notable religion. Jack Merridew 06:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's Jediism - a different franchise. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as NN/OR/GAMECRUFT/TRIVIA. Jack Merridew 06:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The lie that coverage of such ludicrous topics does no harm is oft repeated; a canard. Jack Merridew 06:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What lie? What harm?  Please see WP:HONEST. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whenever I see ONLY Googlehits thrown at me, I can't help but feel wary. The notion that a review WOULDN'T mention a main character is absurd. Though arguing that a fictional character qualifies as a movie star, a real-life movie star, because "such games are as big or bigger than movies nowadays". How would that make fictional people equal to real people? Why wouldn't it necessitate notability for their voice actors, rather than the person they're voicing? Probationary keep. Development section shows promise, but without a good reception section, I can't in good faith say that the article is up to snuff. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced, and too big to merge into the parent article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well referenced? Two entire sections are uncited, and the actual CONTENTS of the article only has two references. If you want to make a list, make one, but until we see some actual notability, having a single paragraph out of four being well-referenced is not enough, and is a bother to see articles survive based on plot when other editors spend a day or more scouring the Intenret to find any out-of-universe information. I may think that WP:FICT is a bit too strict, but not to the point that I can say that an article should survive despite having no out-of-universe information. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:05, 26 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.