Talk:RTGame

Notability
, thanks for examining the page. Could you please take another look at The Verge, Polygon, and Kotaku? The first two are greenlit at WP:RSP, and Kotaku doesn't have an entry but is used as a reference at RSP, which seems a pretty strong indicator. All three articles are entirely about the RTGame channel, so I don't see WP:SIGCOV concerns, and because they're entirely different news cycles WP:BLP1E is off the table. If you agree, feel free to move back to mainspace. If not, could you articulate the specific concerns you have with each reference, as well as each of the other news articles currently cited? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi @Sdkb and sorry for taking a while to reply (school break and all). I was mainly going off WP:ENT, thought it is part of additional criteria. The 3 sources mentioned are all reliable (my wording was quite confusing, I wasn't intending to reference those sources), thought 3 reliable sources does seem to be borderline on notability. I'm not too good with YouTuber notability so if you feel that it does pass it's relevant guideline (which would be WP:ENT), you can go ahead and move it yourself to the mainspace. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 10:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Sbkb should not move this to mainspace, as the article creator when the article has already been through AFD and deleted for lack of notability. The only change since the deletion is the addition of two sources focused on videos he did for Hitman 3. Neither article discusses the subject in-depth. 3 sources is extremely weak for a BLP. -- ferret (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Berrely, thanks for the reply, and no worries about the wikibreak. I'm not super familiar with WP:ENT either, but as you mentioned it's an optional alternative for GNG rather than a replacement for it, and since this meets GNG I'm going to go ahead and restore the page.
 * Ferret, the added sources are central to the argument for notability, as there was wide agreement at the previous AfD that The Verge qualified as one source for GNG, and Polygon/Kotaku are similar, so the "multiple" requirement of GNG is now met. There is no requirement to go through AfC when recreating an article if the circumstances have meaningfully changed as they have here, so while I abided by your draftification, if you continue to have concerns at this point, a new AfD would be the proper venue to voice them. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ferret, the added sources are central to the argument for notability, as there was wide agreement at the previous AfD that The Verge qualified as one source for GNG, and Polygon/Kotaku are similar, so the "multiple" requirement of GNG is now met. There is no requirement to go through AfC when recreating an article if the circumstances have meaningfully changed as they have here, so while I abided by your draftification, if you continue to have concerns at this point, a new AfD would be the proper venue to voice them. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Drift King Title Notoriety
I know the relevance of Daniel's "Drift King" title among his following and community, but I don't think it's important enough to be included in this article. FranzBarron (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * As it's a common joke in the community, and the fact it's already there, I think it may as well be included. I mean, why remove it? 72.0.152.19 (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)