Talk:Robin Hunicke

Doubtful notability
I have a serious doubt about the encyclopedic notability of this person.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I second this concern. However, it should be noted that Ms. Hunicke's photo was recently selected as a featured picture.  If this article is deleted, the photo should be seriously considered for addition to the thatgamecompany page.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion at Talk:Thatgamecompany regarding the idea of merging the Robin Hunicke article into the company's article. Anyone with an opinion on this proposal may wish to go there and join the discussion.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree this should come down. This is like a linked in profile not notable for any other reason.  It appears that it is part of a mutual self-appreciation effort!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.200.3 (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Reads like an ad!
Please remove the ad, especially at the beginning of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.203.103.179 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there has been relatively little said negatively about her; I agree that the lead needed to be trimmed some, but I don't know if it will be enough for your liking. I am also planning a major rewrite in the future, so hopefully that will address some of your concerns as well.  Clay  Clay  Clay  21:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability?
What exactly is the threshold for notability here? I can't help noting that there seems to be an awful lot of extremely trivial references. Something like half of them are merely links to Hunicke's own webpage or to that of the company she works for. And a lot of the other half is nothing but credits that mention Hunicke as part of a development team.

Is getting on this type of list enough to render you notable enough for your own Wikipedia article? The reason I ask is because I noticed that only seven of the top ten on that list have an article, and one of those is Nintendo veteran and video game legend Shigeru Miyamoto.

What are the relevant notability guidelines here?

Peter Isotalo 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do a basic Google search, you'll see many articles pop up within the first few pages: Gamasutra, G4TV, Kotaku, Gamesauce, The Guardian, I'm pretty sure that is way more than enough to establish notability. Also, the end of your argument somewhat sounds like it is steering towards WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Clay  Clay  Clay  05:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that a 95th place on a top 100-list seems rather non-notable (the core of the statement, I might add) obviously isn't OTHERSTUFF. I was merely wondering about the usefulness of defining anyone even remotely successful in the entertainment industry as notable. Your Google finds do seem to be much more relevant than what's actually in the article right now, though. But then again, article content is what we're supposed to be discussing. What's around right now looks more like trivial self-promotion (even if it's written by a third party). And pardon my bluntness, but a quote like "the notions of fate, meaning, and consequence can be communicated via video games" smacks of bland blog-posting, not something worth keeping in an encyclopedia.
 * You avoided my most pertinent question, btw: what are the relevant notability guidelines here?
 * Peter Isotalo 08:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The part of your argument I was referencing as leaning towards OTHERSTUFF: "The reason I ask is because I noticed that only seven of the top ten on that list have an article, and one of those is Nintendo veteran and video game legend Shigeru Miyamoto."
 * This person satisfies WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE in the WP:BIO notability guideline.
 * The fact that the content I brought up isn't in the article doesn't make the subject less notable.
 * I can't comment as to the content of the article at present; if you look at the edit history I have only made two edits to this page so far.
 *  Clay  Clay  Clay  09:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Robinhunicke 240x160 August2009.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Robinhunicke 240x160 August2009.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 15, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-03-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * On her birthday no less. Cute coincidence there. :P 82.166.114.239 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Funomena was created in 2012, not 2011. 208.107.76.73 (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous
When did Wikipedia fall so low? How much did she pay for this? What has she done to deserve to be advertised like this on the 5th biggest website on the planet? Are you joking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.212.170 (talk • contribs) 14:55, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

And Shameful
There is absolutely no good reason for this to be the POTD! How did this happen? Clearly a failure, or loophole, in the peer review process! Marquess (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Calm down. POTDs are chosen based on the quality of the picture, not the notability of the subject. In my opinion, it's a good photo. 134.114.47.103 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for any of the above posters to 'calm down' because as the above two stated, this POTD is a ridiculous and shameful self-serving abuse of the WP process! I have some very high quality pictures of bricks and bars of soap. Their photographic 'goodness' does not make the pictures themselves notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.121.158 (talk • contribs) 16:03, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion
I - and appanently every single other poster on this talk page - nominate this article for removal due to lack of notability. It does indeed, as one poster noted, read like little more that a LinkedIn profile.

If someone here knows more about the formal deletion process, please initiate it. In addition to the incredibly self-serving advertising that the article represents, the appearance of the subject as a POTD particularly smacks of a gratuitous subversion of Wikipedia's goals and standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.121.158 (talk • contribs) 16:03, July 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * ---> WP:PROD or WP:AFD.--ukexpat (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Robin Hunicke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324034826/http://thatgamecompany.com/about/robin-hunicke/ to http://thatgamecompany.com/about/robin-hunicke/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520194115/http://thatgamecompany.com/general/robin-hunicke-joins-tgc/ to http://thatgamecompany.com/general/robin-hunicke-joins-tgc/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.glitch.com/blog/2012/03/29/bigger-better-brighter/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219071725/http://www.bafta.org/awards/video-games/nominations,664,BA.html to http://www.bafta.org/awards/video-games/nominations,664,BA.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324034826/http://thatgamecompany.com/about/robin-hunicke/ to http://thatgamecompany.com/about/robin-hunicke/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy
Hey guys

I wondered if we should add a section to this page about the recent criticism and controversy regaring Robin Hunicke as detailed by the journalists from People Make Games in their video "Investigating Three Indie Superstars Accused of Emotional Abuse". Any thoughts on this? 46.22.28.209 (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Directly citing a YouTube video is frowned upon unless the journalist producing that video is really prestigious, but we can cite reputable games journalists that echo the story, ideally that includes some verification that they looked into it themselves and not merely saying "check out this video, no idea if it's right". https://www.gamedeveloper.com/culture/funomena-co-founder-robin-hunicke-accused-of-workplace-emotional-abuse is a start, at least, but it seems pretty deferential, too.  SnowFire (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of the same but had similar reservations wrt reporting directly from Youtube. I think we need to be extra careful with this one in particular as the article falls under WP:BLP. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)