Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marty Stratton


 * 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 delete. Consensus here is to delete this article and no editor has brought forth sources that could establish notability. Anyone can create a redirect from this page to id Software. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Marty Stratton

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for notability since 2010, and his recent "controversy" is more related to Doom Eternal than the subject itself. Either delete or merge into a more relevant article. sixty nine  • whaddya want? •  02:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  02:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to id Software. Subject is not notable, with the only thing people likely know him for being a controversy that has to do with id as a whole, even if he was a key party in the controversy. - Whadup, it&#39;s ya girl, Dusa (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable--or redirect, whatever. Blip on the radar. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as I ironically found this page because of the recent controversy. Doesn't seem to be notable outside of it. Nomader  ( talk ) 04:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding on to my delete note here, at best Stratton is notable for WP:BLP1E with the controversy around the treatment of the composer for the Doom series, which is not enough to keep the article. Nomader  ( talk ) 16:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Notability not demonstrated. While they have worked on notable pieces of work, a biographical article can't simply inherit notability from these aforementioned works, they need to be notable themselves. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Whilst it does make sense to have pages for pioneers of videogame technology like Shigeru Miyamoto the creator of Mario or John Carmack who revolutionized real-time 3D graphics technology. Marty Stratton as a person is not notable and the only reason why I know about him is because of the recent controversy surrounding him (not to say controversy disqualifies a person given that Tim Sweeney (who was involved in some legal battles with Apple) rightfully has a page due to developing the first iteration of the Unreal Engine. 121.200.4.114 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I also believe there has been enough news coverage of the incident that can be cited which may be considered more appropriate for the standards of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3D5F:A3A0:ECCE:FB92:E96A:480E (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect Most of the sources are only passing mentions. Redirects are cheap and we can leave the door open for improvement. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep He is an executive producer in a medium which earns more than the film industry, developing titles with one of the most well known IPs in 3 decades. If the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_producers are notable, I'd argue he is a notable figure in the industry.
 * Both of these arguments are countered with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:SINGLEEVENT. -Vipz (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as the only reason this page seems to exist is to cover the recent controversy, which should probably be covered on the main page for Doom Eternal anyway. xezno: contribs &#124; talk 03:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the recent changes removed a long table of his credits. Opening a revision from yesterday has it back. This article was first indexed on the wayback machine in 2016, adding his credits for several other titles. 2607:FEA8:3D5F:A3A0:ECCE:FB92:E96A:480E (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seems to have many credits, though they are not currently listed in the article, as well as relatively broad media coverage within the gaming sphere.  –DMartin  07:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to id Software. If you want to make a worthy article about him, do it in draftspace, then bring it into mainspace when it's of sufficient quality. Criticalus (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - the afd nomination is in time to "interest" and longstanding controversy about the subject which is now getting significant coverage WP:SUSTAINED; this suggests that the subject was historically notable in some way WP:NOTTEMPORARY To some people, with a speciality interest, the topic is quite notable.  The subject might/might not be a creative professional. WP:AUTHOR.  Agreed it is a huge market and medium.  Agreed, When I read the article it read to me as advertising or promotion.   My suggestion would be to let the controversy settle down a bit, with current interest to see if the article can be improved, and then revisit if necessary.  I can see that it might be frustrating to keep an article tagged for a decade, but the interest makes the point that the subject may be notable Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "When I read the article it read to me as advertising or promotion." That kind of content should not be on Wikipedia mainspace. If that is indeed how the article reads, perhaps it should move to draftspace until it no longer has those issues? Criticalus (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Article was tagged for notability for twelve years, and in that entire duration nothing was done to establish SIGCOV. A recent controversy that temporarily has his name in the news doesn't change that and is not enough to meet BLP guidelines. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  07:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite the lack of content within the article itself, Marty Stratton fulfills the basic criteria of notability outlined in WP:BIO and should be presumed notable. His actions related to his company has been the subject of multiple published works from secondary sources. Within the context of determining basic criteria, the definition of "published work" to qualify as a secondary source is deliberately broad, so we can consider anything from a news organization to an individual youtuber, so long as they are reliable, independent of one another, and independent of the subject. However, for the sake of this evaluation, we will instead consider organizations like IGN, The Escapist (magazine), Variety (magazine), and Eurogamer. Each aforementioned entity qualifies as WP:RS within the video game industry that have released publications discussing Marty Stratton's actions in the industry, and have no relation to either Marty Stratton or his company.
 * Further, Marty Stratton is notable for multiple events beyond this controversy and does not fall under any categories of WP:NOT, meaning he does not meet any of the exclusionary criteria for the classifications. Under the notability guidelines in effect as of November 2022, the subject of this article meets basic criteria of a notable person. As such, the article should not be deleted on the basis of notability. 2001:56A:7C0F:4000:C085:1C31:F5B:B7FD (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC) — 2001:56A:7C0F:4000:C085:1C31:F5B:B7FD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This word salad sounds quite promotional in tone while going off topic and not addressing the issues with the article. "Presumed notable" doesn't qualify for keeping a BLP on Wikipedia. If Stratton was "notable for multiple events", they'd definitely be in the article and it wouldn't be nominated. Furthermore, some of the sites you linked here aren't even cited therein, while the current sourcing is already questionable (Medium, Reddit, YouTube). sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  18:48, 16 November 2022 (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.