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.
Keep please be wary of
turtles all the way down logic in regard to establishing media sources: to even be recognized as a notable source to begin with all sources had to be noted by something else. You can't do infinite regress.
WakandaQT (
talk)
07:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your post, but are you mixing up the concepts of reliability and notability? We have articles on news outlets that we don't consider reliable sources, and likewise there are news outlets that we consider reliable that haven't been written about by other sources. To be notable for Wikipedia, it would have to be covered by reliable sources; those reliable sources do not also have to be notable for WP themselves.--
AlexandraIDV09:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The way it applies to notability also is if I supplied a source which gave focus to the site, you could argue that source isn't itself notable enough for that focus to be notable. Although I think we could have an easier time of independently establishing notability through something impartial like circulation (physical publications) or visitor count (online).
WakandaQT (
talk)
05:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Thats not how it works. If that's how it worked, any article creator like yourself could vaguely handwave away any notability concern. And it really doesn't work that way with what is essentially a
WP:BLP.
Sergecross73msg me13:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article itself seems to be trying to make the case for notability by merely basing it off the number of citations. Cf. §§ "Gaming review" and "Censorship review". That's not how Wikipedia does things—the number of times a particular source is cited by other sources doesn't matter, what matters is significant coverage in third party sources, which does not exist.
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please alwaysping!09:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That source isn't helpful to this subjects notability - it's almost entirely around GamerGate and Mortal Kombat. Much like the other sources in the article, it gives very little to work with as far as content that can be usable about him in an encyclopedia article (significant coverage.) I mean, how do you constructively add "He said some controversial stuff and got dunked on by some random Twitter users for it"? That approach is more or less what got the article nominated for deletion in the first place.
Sergecross73msg me13:40, 22 January 2021 (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.
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.
Keep please be wary of
turtles all the way down logic in regard to establishing media sources: to even be recognized as a notable source to begin with all sources had to be noted by something else. You can't do infinite regress.
WakandaQT (
talk)
07:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your post, but are you mixing up the concepts of reliability and notability? We have articles on news outlets that we don't consider reliable sources, and likewise there are news outlets that we consider reliable that haven't been written about by other sources. To be notable for Wikipedia, it would have to be covered by reliable sources; those reliable sources do not also have to be notable for WP themselves.--
AlexandraIDV09:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The way it applies to notability also is if I supplied a source which gave focus to the site, you could argue that source isn't itself notable enough for that focus to be notable. Although I think we could have an easier time of independently establishing notability through something impartial like circulation (physical publications) or visitor count (online).
WakandaQT (
talk)
05:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Thats not how it works. If that's how it worked, any article creator like yourself could vaguely handwave away any notability concern. And it really doesn't work that way with what is essentially a
WP:BLP.
Sergecross73msg me13:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article itself seems to be trying to make the case for notability by merely basing it off the number of citations. Cf. §§ "Gaming review" and "Censorship review". That's not how Wikipedia does things—the number of times a particular source is cited by other sources doesn't matter, what matters is significant coverage in third party sources, which does not exist.
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please alwaysping!09:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That source isn't helpful to this subjects notability - it's almost entirely around GamerGate and Mortal Kombat. Much like the other sources in the article, it gives very little to work with as far as content that can be usable about him in an encyclopedia article (significant coverage.) I mean, how do you constructively add "He said some controversial stuff and got dunked on by some random Twitter users for it"? That approach is more or less what got the article nominated for deletion in the first place.
Sergecross73msg me13:40, 22 January 2021 (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.