Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bain (game commentator)


 * 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. A lot of the keep arguments provide sources that indicate the subject passes the letter of WP:GNG. A few opposes claim "non-notable" without rationale. The other explains the sources' perceived lack of reliability or independence; previous consensus backs the reliability of the sources, and it is kind of expected that sources covering a similar topic to the subject's field are the ones used; musicians are discussed primarily in music-interested publications, and so on. Salvidrim!   &#9993;  20:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

John Bain (game commentator)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable/Systemic bias Selmatoed (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. — Ed! (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Within the gaming industry he is very notable, and does a wide range of commentating during game tournaments, a sport in some countries. Other Youtubers who are just as well known have Wikipedia pages. NotMiserable (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ed! Also, "Other Youtubers who are just as well known have Wikipedia pages." is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  06:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How are you deleting per Ed when all he said was "non-notable"? Neither of you have brought an argument for the non-notability of this article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Eurogamer did a lengthy writeup about him. GameFront thinks his actions are worth writing about. As a creative professional, VG247 finds it worthwhile to showcase his pieces on their website. Rock, Paper, Shotgun also finds his work notable. As an entertainer, he has a large fan base. I see sufficient evidence here to demonstrate his notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * VG247 is not a reliable source, nor does the subject qualify as a Creative professional under Generally_notable_people. Selmatoed (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is strong community consensus that says otherwise; if you truly believe vg247 is not reliable, you can try to form a new consensus, but until then I will continue using it as a reliable source. Regarding the essay you linked to, is there any guideline or policy to support this conclusion besides the user essay? --Odie5533 (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has reliable sources that demonstrate notability as shown by Odie. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject in question is notable, as per Odie5533's reasoning. --Droodkin (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The subject is someone who makes YouTube videos of himself talking while other people play video games. This is not notable by any standard. Further, though video game-oriented outlets like "GameFront" or "Rock, Paper, Shotgun" might write about him, their standards for notability are not necessarily the same as those for an encyclopedia. NotMiserable's argument that "other Youtubers [sic] who are just as well[-]known have Wikipedia pages" falls under the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category (as mentioned by Andrew Lenahan). Additionally, this is a clear-cut case of WP:INN. BoneevoCharard (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have developed your own standards for notability that are not in line with the GNG. This is not necessarily a proposition without merit, but it is one that is not founded in consensus. Additionally, please do not mark up my comments. If you feel the need to add your own comments, you could copy and paste my words and then mark those up, but please do not mark them up in place. It makes it look like those are my opinions, when nothing could be further from the truth. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * His interpretation of the GNG seems accurate to me. Can you provide reliable sources (not rock, paper, shotgun or gaming blogs with guest posters with little to no editorial oversight) which have provided significant coverage for this individual? (Reliable_sources) Selmatoed (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The links that have been posted are from sites that have been deemed as reliable sources by WP:VG. They have shown to have editorial oversight, and are not just general "gaming blogs". Blake (Talk·Edits) 06:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that he has a false impression of what the subject in question actually does and is basing his deletion recommendation on something which is not true. Note that he claims "The subject is someone who makes Youtube videos of himself talking while other people play video games.". This is absolutely not the case. The subjects content clearly consists of review, critique and analysis which involves the subject speaking and providing his opinion of the title which he is playing. Regular news and comment content would appear to be present on the subjects Youtube channel on a daily basis and as regards to eSports related commentary, that is clearly recognized on Wikipedia regardless of BoneevoCharard opinion on the subject, which should not be up for discussion in this instance. The fact remains that the blogs you have mentioned have their own Wikipedia articles yet are less notable than the subject in question. Other Youtubers, also less notable than the subject in question have their own articles, it makes no actual sense to remove this one especially when the strongest supporters for the removal seem to not even know what the subject does to begin with due to their own personal ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esten12 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Odie. --Jon Ace T C 20:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Do you really mean to tell me that the most notable gaming journalist in the entire world with almost a million subscribers on Youtube, who had incredible influence on the entire gaming community, a man who has raised thousands of dollars for charity, has his own e-sports team, is a popular Starcraft commentator, and who is approached by indie developers as well as major publishers for game reviews; does not deserve a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.112.244.136 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete "Most notable gaming journalist" is not a fact. "who had incredible influence on the entire gaming community" - what are you talking about exactly? What influence has he had on everyone who plays video games? All these statements are incredibly vague - and untrue at that. Anyone with a computer can be an "indie developer," so anyone approaching an individual to review their game does not make the individual notable. Anyone can have an e-sports team. Your arguments are either overlapping/hyperbolic ("is the most notable" "is a popular" "has had incredible influence on the entire gaming community" "a man who has" etc.. That leaves that he has raised thousands of dollars for charity. So have many, many, many others who also are not notable enough for encyclopedia inclusion. Not notable - delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.8.172 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is extremely notable in the gaming community. Has an incredibly popular YouTube channel, is cited by game journalists, and game developers often clamor to get his attention. -- hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  03:53, 18 January 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.