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 delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Angry Nintendo Nerd

Non-notable person/persona. o/ s/ p 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• This person is notable in the gaming community. Much like The Video Game Pianist, the angry nintendo nerd has gained a large following.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike8bit ( talk • contribs)
  • Please sign your talk pages. I also call for a Delete unless more information relating to relevance is provided. Wslack 23:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Please note: The following three votes were deleted or modified by User:Elixer202 [1]-- Daduzi ^talk 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a member of the gaming community who has never heard of this person. Nor is the current article encyclopedic. -- Pboyd04 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)(changed to: Keep as a member of the gaming community who loves this guy.) reply
  • Delete pending some kind of mention of the subject in an at least moderately mainstream source. I should also point out that Mike8bit's only contributions thus far have been creating the article and creating links to the article in game articles (typically "this game has been reviewed by the Angry Nintendo Nerd"). Distinct whiff of self-promotion. -- Daduzi ^talk 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Pboyd04. — Reinyday, 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC))(changed to: Keep per Pboyd04.)
• Delete, reviews on the sites mentioned in the article aren't enough to estabilish notability, IMO, even if they popular. Recury 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep This guy is awesome. Many people haven't heard of him but after reading this will learn.-- Elixer202 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's not our job to advertise for people. If they are already notable, then we write articles on them. This guy isn't. Recury 19:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep I love the Angry Nintendo Nerd's reviews, and as he reviews more games, more info for his entry will likely surface. -- Shadow Lord 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Apparently this page is the first one Mr Shadow Lord found after registering. -- Daduzi ^talk 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — getcrunk what?! 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless we can get some reliable sources on this. nn. Ziggurat 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Looks like WP:BJAODN to me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep I wouldn't have found him if he wasn't talked about enough to put on here. He should at least be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia since the person who filmed himself getting angry playing Abadox is mentioned on that game's page. -- Richard Cane 08:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If he is talked about a lot then finding a mainstream source that mentions him should be no problem. Whether or not he warrants a mention in Wikipedia is irrelevant to whether or not he warrants an article; if you can find an article where you think mentioning Mr Nerd would improve the article then feel free. The only real issue here is whether he fulfills the criteria of WP:BIO, if you can find one criteria he fulfills then there may be a case for an article. -- Daduzi ^talk 10:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If you look on google and type "Angry Nintendo Nerd" you'll see there's considerable interest in him. There are German [2], Japanese [3], Spanish [4], Swedish [5], Dutch [6] and Hebrew [7] sites discussing him. The reason I mention this is there are those who seem to be implying that he's orchestrating this for self promotion. If that's so how is he able to know all of these different languages? The problem with most people trying to see this as relevant is that he's reviewing old nintendo games. The reason I see this as supporting his staying on here is that I don't see how it hurts to associate him with the obscure games he's reviewing. The "google test" seems to show his popularity, it'll be more than a stub since his reviews keep expanding, he has a cult following, and there's no downside to having him on. Another "nerd" who is on wikipedia, and I believe rightfully so, is Gary Brecher also known as the War Nerd. He pretty much does the same thing but he's an expert on wars rather than old nintendo games. Richard Cane 03:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • The Google test alone isn't sufficient to warrant inclusion, there must be some other claim to notability. To take the War Nerd for instance, his article shows that he's writing a book and has been referenced on Fox News. A closer parallel is Old Man Murray, but again he has a greater degree of notability (having been referenced by the founder of Valve, and though it's not mentioned in the article the team were also investigated by the Secret Service). You'll also notice that as far as the Google test goes both the War Nerd (173,000 unique hits for "War Nerd" [8]) and Old Man Murray (103,000 unique hits for "Old Man Murray" [9]) considerably outrank the Angry Nintendo Nerd (20,500 unique hits for "Angry Nintendo Nerd" [10]). So the Google test is not convincing on its own, and I still don't see anything notable about this individual that warrants inclusion aside from the fact that his reviews are popular within a certain community. -- Daduzi ^talk 12:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • That book hasn't surfaced after nearly two years after it was announced and the Fox News mention is extremely recent. His article's creation on Wikipedia even predated the controversy with Victor Hanson. Did the creator of that article somehow predict all of the notoriety he was to receive when it was made? It seems to me that person saw somebody who was gaining popularity and decided to post about him on here. And you're forgetting that the Angry Nintendo Nerd is writing about old nintendo games. It's not going to have widespread appeal based on the subject matter but that doesn't mean he's any less relevant in regard to what he's talking about. It's a niche audience but the point is he does have one and it's considerable enough to warrent mentioning him on here. Old Man Murray has been around since 1999 and Gary Brecher has been writing articles since 2002. The Angry Nintendo Nerd has been doing this for about three months according to the signup date for his character on his myspace page so comparing those numbers only proves my point that he's gaining widespread popularity in a short amount of time. -- Richard Cane 06:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I'd suggest re-creating the article when Mr Nerd becomes notable outside of a niche audience, then. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Daduzi ^talk 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • If you want to talk numbers lets look at the Angry Nintendo Nerds YouTube count alone. 128,749 then add to that screw attacks versions of the ANN nerd videos 92524. That doesn't even include other sites he is featured on like gametrailers.com and others. Hey, but who's counting? Solarman 03:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
              • Since when has "number of videos uploaded to Youtube" been a good indication of how encyclopaedia worthy an individual is? -- Daduzi ^talk 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                • You were the one who started dropping numbers, not me. But I agree. The numbers aren't what's on trial here. Even though the angry nintendo nerd has more views than the War Nerd and Old Man Murray put together. Solarman 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
              • I noticed you ignored every other point I made except where I mentioned that reviews for old nintendo games aren't widespread in today's national media. Why do you have such a high standard for a person who makes videos of reviews for old nintendo games? He's become the most notable person at what he's doing. People who are interested in what he's talking about have shown they are willing to watch what he has to say. Why even bother making pages for the old games he's reviewing? Do you really think there's a huge group of people currently playing Who Framed Roger Rabbit? or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? Nothing new or interesting has happened in regard to those two games except his recent reviews for them which have been viewed by thousands of people. -- Richard Cane 07:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                • The reason for ignoring the other points was that I didn't want to get bogged down too much discussing the ins and outs of other articles. I know I did earlier, but I was wrong to do so. Simply put, the content of other articles is irrelevant as to whether this article should be deleted: the criteria are in WP:BIO, and precedent isn't one of them. Only if the other two have been through AfD (and there's no indication that they have) and were kept might there be something relevant to bring up. As things stand all that matters is whether the conditions of WP:BIO are met, and apart from a relatively unimpressive Google test result I've still seen abdolutely nothing to suggest any of the criteria are met. -- Daduzi ^talk 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                  • So there are whole new criteria for every different article on Wikipedia? Some articles are ok but some aren't because it's incovenient to discuss their acceptability by comparing them to other articles which have already been established? Sorry, I don't buy it. If you look on WP:BIO you'll see that that isn't an exclusionary list and the google test is more than enough for the subject matter involved. Not only that, but he has a cult status and his article is likely to expand beyond a stub which are arguably reasons enough for him to be on here. I'll put it this way, if somebody goes to the games he refers to the odds are they will want to see what he has to say about them. Linking to them does absolutely nothing to hurt the content of this site. But not only will the people who are interested in those games (which are already accepted content on this site) want to see what he has to say but he's shown that even more people are willing to view what he has to say about them even if they aren't interested in that specific topic. If those games can be put on this site his popular opinion regarding them deserve to be on here too. Unless there's some hierarchy that puts biographies above articles featuring old games in importance that I'm not aware of. -- Richard Cane 01:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply

(reindenting)OK, this will be my last comment on the issue here since things seem to be getting dragged out. To answer your points, it's not a case of different standards because the articles in question (as far as I can tell) haven't been put forward to AfD. In other words, no standards whatsoever have been applied; there's no standards regarding what articles can be created, only what articles can pass AfD. I know WP:BIO is not an exhaustive list, but there still needs to be some claim to wide notability and as things stand I'm just not seeing it. Finally, on the issue of links to his reviews of games, I personally wouldn't have a problem with providing external links at the bottom of the relevant articles; given that it's likely he's the only one to have reviewed them it would seem to fit within WP:EL. Anyway, like I said I'm bowing out of arguing on here, but feel free to respond on here, and if you want to get my responses drop me a line on my talk page. -- Daduzi ^talk 15:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Richard, I was responding to daduzis comment about the War Nerd and Old Man Murray. I am well aware that those old games are not too important anymore. Part of the joke to the ANN reviews is why would anyone even bother reviewing those old games. People that may go to wikipedia and look up the angry nintendo nerd may want to learn more about the games he reviews however. In which case it's good to have links to those games articles on the ann wiki page. Solarman 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, I was responding to Daduzi. I'm on your side. I should have made that more clear. -- Richard Cane 08:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Give the entry a chance. the guy's movie clips are relatively new and yet he got more than 30 000 hits for one, as well as some internet interviews here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.19.90 ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 July 2006(UTC)
• Keep How much more information would we need to keep this page up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanWaste ( talk • contribs)
  • The nomination isn't really because it's a bad article (there are far worse, anyway), just that the subject of the article doesn't need an entry. So adding more stuff probably wouldn't change most of the delete-voters minds (unless you added reliable sources that indicated some level of notability). Recury 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Screwattack is a great upcoming website. The popularity of the Angry Nintendo nerd currently is growing at a decent pace, don’t delete this wiki as long as there is no similar character producing on the internet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.193.165 ( talk • contribs)
  • Comment: In interesting trivia news: the above three keep votes come from users who have either one edit, or no edits, that are not related to Angry Nintendo Nerd. In completely unrelated news, one of my socks has mysteriously gone missing. -- Daduzi ^talk 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I use Wikipedia as a strong source of information. I have never edited a page before, because I generally use Wikipedia for items that I don't know much about...so how would I edit the pages they relate to? I do know, however, a bit about the ANN. I understand all of the arguments shown so far, but I greatly believe that after the ANN's debut has sunken in, more and more people will want to know more and more information about him. Why can't the initial fans provide that information with Wikipedia? HumanWaste 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Oh, it's right here next to this promotional pamphlet I just recieved from wikipedia. o/ s/ p 23:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: I’m awfully sorry if being a fan of this guy nullifies my right to have an opinion on whether or not this entry is purely promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanktheevilmonkey ( talk • contribs)
• Delete, stir, and simmer with noodles. Deltabeignet 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep this page. he is very popular with 300,000 total views of his videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainMe ( talk • contribs)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, I guess. Recury 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep, The Fact that there is such a debate going on here proves the character is notable to a large group of gamers. He has a large following and is a very recognizable figure. Solarman 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Which would be fine were this an encyclopaedia aimed at that particular group of gamers. It is not, however, so there needs to be some evidence that he is notable outside of that group. -- Daduzi ^talk 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • There would be no reason for people outside of the gaming community to know about him, since he is someone who reviews games. Nevertheless, if you even bothered to check out some of the external links provided or do a simple google search you will find people all around the world talking about his video reviews, and I'm sure a lot of them are just average people who have heard of him, much like how everyone has heard of the star wars kid. -- Solarman 03:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • There is no reason for people outside of the gaming community to know about him, so there is no reason for him to have an article here. Recury 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
        • There are many articles about people who are famous in the gaming community on wikipedia. You didn't understand what I said. He is becoming an internet phenomenon which includes people outside the gaming community. Even though it should really only be gamers who are interested. AND even if it was only gamers who were interested, it still warrents and article, because like I just stated, there are many articles about famous gaming personalities. Solarman 12:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Don't worry about the other articles, this is the one up for deletion. Recury 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Which it shouldn't be. Solarman 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
              • Recury your logic doesnt make much sense. Suppose i don't have any interest in say, electronic idm music, that doesn't mean i should vote the deletion of all artists page that sell about 500 copies of their album thru their own indie label. Yet they are probably all worthy of a wikipedia entry. i dont know why this guy, whose clips have been seen by hundreds of thousands of people should be deleted. 206.172.19.90 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                • Because he doesn't meet the standards of WP:BIO.-- Daduzi ^talk 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                • And, in fact, many articles similar to your theoretical idm guy one are deleted for almost the exact reason you mention. Recury 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
                  • Theorectial? check out this list of idm musicians. His point is valid. Mike8bit 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:IDM_musicians reply

Yes, some of those articles would not survive an AFD. What does that have to do with anything? Recury 19:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• The point was that even though something like idm music which he doesn't care about has an article, it's still there, because there are people that do have an interest in it. Like the angry nintendo nerd, though not every person on earth will have an interest in reading his article, there is a large enough following to warrent his wiki topic. Mike8bit 16:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No, its there because no one has tried to delete it yet. Like I said, many wouldn't survive AFD. People create articles that don't fit Wikipedia standards all the time. That isn't a valid argument at all. Here is a good essay that explains why: WP:INN. Recury 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • This particular part of this discussion is now just going around in circles. The overall point is that he meets the criteria for his own article. He is widely recognized in his particular field. Mike8bit 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. Since this was indeed reopened, I don't see any harm about keeping this page. I does need a little cleanup. Mostly Rainy 14:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not worth server space. -- Calton | Talk 15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Doesn't meet any of the initial criteria for WP:BIO. Seems that supporters are attached to the google test, which 20,000 hits just plain isn't very impressive. Alexa rankings are screwattack.com - 1,156,995 [11] and cinemassacre - 3,905,515 [12]...both are extrememly low. This just plain isn't notable. IrishGuy ^talk 17:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• That's not where his notablity is. It's on sites such as youtube and various gaming websites. This is the part where you'll say to me since when has number of videos uploaded to Youtube been a good indication being worthy of a wiki article? It is totally a good indication because thats how many people know about him. Solarman 14:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde gets 16,600 using the google test [13] and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? gets 25,200 [14]. The Angry Nintendo Nerd has 22,300 which is good enough for the subject matter involved. Again, if those two games can be on here so can the only person on earth doing a video review for them. As for your Alexa search, I chose Bruce Campbell as an example. His offical page [15] ranks 471,684. The screwattack site is only known for the Angry Nintendo Nerd's rants and if he's able to pull in a third of what a cult star like Bruce Campbell can get on his page then I don't think he's that bad considering he only posts videos about old games. Also, I'd like to point out that their websites do not denote how popular each is at what they do. The Angry Nintendo Nerd's popularity, as Solarman pointed out, is derived mostly from very popular mediums like myspace and youtube. -- Richard Cane 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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.