Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Kuchera


 * 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   keep. The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ben Kuchera

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was about to PROD this article because I believe it uncontroversially fails to meet notability guidelines, but noticed this in its history:


 * PROD'ed on July 16th, reason: "Orphaned page with no content, describing a person not meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines."


 * De-PROD'ed 10 days later by : "remove PROD - no rationale provided"

IMO it should've been deleted as an expired PROD then, not de-PROD'ed, but what's done is done and I have to send it through AfD. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The article is clearly in bad shape, nearly non-existent, but.... I think a case for notability exists. It's hard to look for sources since Ben himself is a reliable source and clutters the search results. I threw -"By Ben Kuchera" on the searches to help filter things out. He's discussed by many of other RS's, generally in response to opinions he has expressed about various aspects of the video gaming industry. Cited several times in the Book and Scholar searches. I might call it a very weak keep? He's definitely discussed, but it's more his opinions than him directly. -- ferret (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Small additional comment on the PROD... When GiantSnowman dePROD'd, the PROD template did not have a concern filled in. While there was an edit note by the editor that tagged, the template itself was lacking a rationale. -- ferret (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "He's definitely discussed, but it's more his opinions than him directly." - That might make him a reliable source, but reliable source =/= notable subject. I welcome any sources about the subject that shows significant, independant coverage from a reliable source that could be used as a foundation of an article. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly, which is why I voice it as a very weak. I'm going to do some more digging, but here's a decent piece discussing him as he left Arstechnica for Penny Arcade. And here is a similar take from Joystiq that discusses him directly . I'll see if I can find anything unrelated to the move from Ars to PA though. -- ferret (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A criticism piece by Hardcoregamer (Reliable source according to VG/S).. -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with User:Ferret. Not great sources but enough to show influence and notable opinion maker. The stub is a feature, rather than the typical unsourced puffery about his cat's name and hobbies. There are secondary sources to confirm the current article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment - An article about the same subject and with practically exactly the same content was previously speedily deleted per CSD A7. (See here) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The amount or sameness of content isn't really relevant. Whether or not notability has changed in the 5+ years since that CSD is though. In addition to the sources I had above, here's an interview by Gamertag Radio, which I took to WP:VG/S for an opinion earlier the week. It probably falls under WP:SPS, but all the same: -- ferret (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete It's not enough to have an article topic briefly mention in reliable sources - there needs to be significant coverage of the subject itself. Some brief mentions in regards to game reviews doesn't seem to qualify. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that's what he's known for is video game news and reviews. His name is the equivalent of Roger Ebert for the video game industry - just that the video game industry does not have the mainstream press exposure to make these more household names as film critics get. --M ASEM (t) 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Widely known among non-reliable sources does not equal significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why I provided three reliable sources in this AFD. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Sourcing appropriate for VG show he's a notable journalist. It would be nice if there was more but what's there is sufficient to presume notability for now. --M ASEM (t) 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep from nominator - At this point and with the presented sources I agree there is enough to show that notability is likely; plenty of work to be done to integrate these sources into the article however, obviously. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Salvidrim, I guess you if mean to withdraw, write Withdraw up top below the original nomination. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (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.