Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reckful


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Reckful

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Barely referenced BLP of a professional video gamer. I do believe a few professional gamers are notable, but the industry hasn't really become notable enough itself that there's a lot of coverage in RSes about the individual players. For this particular person, no RS coverage can be found. There are interviews and such on blogs and forums, but nothing at all with apparent editorial oversight. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 23:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Title should be changed to byron "reckful" bernstein. more information can be added as well. Reckful is the most widely recognized wow player in the world, with tremendous press coverage. This article is most definitely justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake1264 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree on the page name change, I was planning to do it if the article was kept. If there is "tremendous press coverage", can you add citations to the article?  If so, then I'll withdraw the AfD. :)   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 23:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Many citations have been added -- interviews from practically every known gaming website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alluredemon (talk • contribs) 01:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: That's not what we meant about "citations." We were looking for interviews in magazines or newspapers, not by pseudonymous bloggers on gamer websites.  Obvious failure of WP:BIO.   Ravenswing   03:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Counter-argument: BBC News or CBS cover gaming a bit inconsistently - despite not having a mention in either, this player is equally or more notable than several players with a biography on wikipedia that have received such mention. Perhaps an exception should be made, taking into account what Livitup mentioned: "I do believe a few professional gamers are notable, but the industry hasn't really become notable enough itself that there's a lot of coverage in RSes about the individual players."  This player is notable, but because of the industry not every notable player is properly covered.  And on the other hand, some of these gaming websites cited (mmo-champion.com, for example) get 1/5th and 1/15th the viewers of major news websites like CBS News or Fox News, respectively, according to Alexa - a fraction, but nothing to be laughed at.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alluredemon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: Unfortunately, that isn't an argument that passes policy muster. The GNG holds that a subject must be discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable, published, third-party sources.  No exception can be - or is - made, because that is the definition of "notability" on Wikipedia, as opposed to the "I think he's important" often proffered by partisans.   Ravenswing   09:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * CommentIn order to have an article, it must be shown that he passes notability guidelines and the sources must be considered reliable. The sources on the article are as follows:
 * 1) This is just a roster and does not show that being on said roster has any notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Merely being on the staff of something does not give you notability regardless of whether the business is notable or not. A good example I like to give is that while the Oscars are notable, being on the Oscar voting panel does not give you notability. It just makes it more likely that there will be reliable sources.
 * 2) This appears to be a non-notable blog interview. Blogs are generally unusable as sources unless they're by someone considered an absolute authority per Wikipedia, which means that in most cases the person would be notable themselves and/or they'd be the type of person that would be quoted in scholarly journals, newspapers, books, and the like. 99.9% of the blogs out there do not fit this description.
 * 3) This one might be useful, and I mean might. The biggie is that they also sell things, so that can often make sources unreliable as far as interviews go- especially if they stand to gain financially through sales generated from the interview. You can run it through the reliable sources noticeboard, but odds are they'll come back and say that this isn't a RS because the site also sells a lot of stuff.
 * 4) This is just a message on a forum. That's not usable as a RS in any way, shape, or form. Forums are almost never usable as a RS and I think the only time it can be used is if it's by someone extremely, extremely notable and it can be absolutely verified that they are who they claim to be. Such forum posts rarely happen.
 * 5) I don't even see where Reckful is mentioned here, either by his handle or his real name. To show notability he must be actually mentioned in the link, it must be in-depth (no brief mentions), and it must be a reliable source.
 * 6) While this looks to be from a reliable source, the article is so brief that I don't really see how it can show notability. At most this could probably be used as a trivial source and it could be argued that there's no lasting notability from hitting the arena cap. I know, I know... it's considered a big deal in the gaming spheres, but you've got to remember that what Wikipedia considers to be an accomplishment worthy of notability doesn't always mesh up with stuff like this.
 * 7) I'm not really sure that this would be considered a source that would show notability either per the arena cap.
 * 8) Having someone self-publish a book about someone is interesting, but rarely notable. Anyone can publish through CreateSpace, so this in itself is not notable. I could publish a book about my best friend's cats, but that doesn't give them notability either. Now if this was reported on through several reliable sites then it might show notability, but just having a self-published book? No, especially since the similarity in last names (and Reckful's IRL name being attached to the book) shows that it was all published and written by someone related to Reckful, making it a primary source.
 * 9) As with the first source, merely being on a staff or crew does not make someone notable. Besides, staff rosters aren't usable as reliable sources. At best they're considered to be a trivial source, but for the most part using them as a source is heavily frowned upon because they're a primary source. Primary sources should only be used if there's multiple independent and reliable sources to back all of this up, meaning that there should already be so many other sources that using a primary source should be unnecessary.
 * 10) Just winning this contest does not give notability and since the site isn't affiliated with Blizzard, it makes it a little harder to prove that it's a RS per Wikipedia. In any case, this might be usable as a trivial source, but it doesn't really show notability.
 * For the most part, none of the sources on the article really show any notability. Gaming isn't as unknown as it previously was, but it's very, very hard for individual games within that world to gain individual notability because most times the mainstream media does not report on them. Unfortunately these gamers are still held up to the same standards of WP:BIO as the next person, so you'll have to try to find sources that fit WP:RS. On a side note, the nominator might also want to look into the article for Zealous1, which also seems to have the same issues of notability and with sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why "unfortunately"? It would be very fortunate if we were to apply our standards consistently. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Response to above:

5. - On the IGN one in #5, Reckful is Anti Parazi (his name in that game Asheron's Call), the person getting interviewed. Just cited to show his prowess in another game.

7. - The most "notable" one from a gaming perspective is #7 - being mentioned on MMO-Champion for a gameplay video (right alongside Blizzard developers, if you look at the youtube underneath, and outdoing that video significantly). This site gets 1/5th the viewers of CBS news, as mentioned above.

Official blizzard site - If mentions on the official Blizzard sites (looking at summary of #10) show notability, then he does have hundreds of those (and several by Blizzard designers) Blizzard designers mentioning Reckful on official Blizzard site... this one is on a forum, and forums don't count, but the developer mentions he linked it in the community news as well. I'll look for that to cite on the main article.

If nothing counts outside of a gamer mentioned on BBC News (and this should only ever happen if news is very dull at the time or said gamer helped cure AIDS or cancer with a DNA-folding game), then of course he has little chance.

The reason I keep bringing up BBC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grubby, by above definitions, has no notable cites outside of BBC links, 1 of which doesn't work, the other 2 describing the same event at a time where news was apparently very dull (example BBC News Article from the time period - mentioning any girls who happen to play computer games. Most of his true success was after these events in 2005, but had he started playing in 2006, he would have 0 citations in news.  All his other citations are from the major gaming websites, like SK Gaming, the same sites cited here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alluredemon (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: When applying the GNG, we don't parse out the motives of the news agencies, measure what else might or might not have been going on that day or question the relative merits of those so covered. The requirement that subjects have been discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources is a bright line: either you meet it or you do not.  Whether this particular subject deserves the recognition that other gamers may have received is a question outside Wikipedia's scope to discuss.   Ravenswing   01:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply/Question: It just seems as though these rules weren't followed for other gamers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Xiaofeng_(professional_gamer), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Kim, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jang_Jae_Ho, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrik_Lindberg for example have no citations from real news agencies, right? The first two have almost no citations whatsoever, the last two almost exclusively SK Gaming. It would be a double standard to delete the Reckful page and not delete those as well, would it not? But I believe they should all stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alluredemon (talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OTHERSTUFF other articles aren't precedence for inclusion. There are so many articles to watch over that it's tough to find ones such as you pointed out. Feel free to nominate those for deletion, however, if you cannot find reliable sources for them. --Teancum (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Tokyogirl79, cited sources don't stack up for WP:GNG notability. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per TokyoGirl's detailed source analysis. Fails the WP:GNG. Also, the argument that "These other pro gamers have articles that are in worse shape doesn't fly - it just means those should probably be deleted as well. Sergecross73   msg me   13:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I filed prods on two of them, and am grateful to Alluredemon for tipping me off.   Ravenswing   15:20, 4 July 2012 (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.