Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevie Case


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Stevie Case

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hindsight is always 20/20, and looking back on this article, it appears to violate NOTINHERITED and NTEMP. As best as I can tell, the article can be summed up thus: the subject beat John Romero at Quake once in 1999 (thus becoming a "girl gamer"), started dating John Romero, did an unpublished shoot for Playboy, broke up with Romero in 2003, and dropped off the face of the Earth. The four year period she was involved with Romero is the only period of time that she has any sort of coverage - everything before 1999 and after 2003 is cobbled together from LinkedIn, or it's meaningless career fluff. A Google search brings up nothing substantial that is not related to John Romero. Therefore, it seems that the subject had a limited timespan of notability simply by being associated with a particular person - once that association ended, so did her notability. MSJapan (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is not temporary.  This LA Times headline is: "She's Winning a Place in the Cyber History Books"   The Playboy stuff is not unpublished, just published online. --Pmsyyz (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is my point, though - you're saying it's not temporary, and the article is exactly in the problem area and doing the same things. Headline clickbait aside, she's "making history", and they ask all of five questions?  Where's the substantial coverage in that?  However, I don't want to nitpick on a source-by-source basis; I'd rather illustrate that the issues in the nom are prevalent here as well, evidenced by this quote:"KillCreek broke the mold, says editor John Davison, when she got so good at Quake (the world's most popular e-game) that she actually won a death match over John Romero, the fellow who designed and invented the game."  This is the crux of the nom - without Romero being involved, she is not notable on her own, meaning this is textbook NOTINHERITED.  Every article and every mention goes back to and is based on "beat John Romero at Quake".  There's nothing else indicating her notability at all outside of that.  No tournament records, no gaming industry work, no nothing.  Once he's no longer associated with her, she disappears.  That's pretty temporary, and since notability is not temporary, she cannot be notable. MSJapan (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is not temporary.  There are many interviews and write-ups out there, and it doesn't matter if the majority of them are from a five year period or whatever.  Once notable, always notable.  As an early celebrity gamer and female gamer, she has been written about rather extensively in reliable sources.  One example that I pulled up quickly is this book.  As far as continuing coverage after Ion Storm, it does exist.  For example, this article and this article.  It doesn't matter if she never makes a comeback, because she doesn't need to.  Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, not whether the coverage was warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article's in a sorry state, but a cursory video game reliable sources custom Google search shows that the subject easily passes the general notability guideline as the subject of the following articles from reliable (vetted) sources:


 * http://www.gamestar.de/news/vermischtes/1336002/stevie_case_verlaesst_ion_storm.html
 * http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/06/08/stevie-case-interview
 * http://www.gamezone.com/news/gz_interview_cyberathlete_professional_league_makes_superstars_out_of_gamers_with_international_pc_game_competitions
 * and plenty more mentions and repackaged press releases (show lasting interest but don't count as dedicated coverage)
 * http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2007/09/column_game_mag_weaseling_mag_29.php: "PC Gamer's Nov. 2000 "Game Gods" issue, the one that identified Stevie Case as a shining light of the PC scene's future" (might be worth pulling that issue, if you think there's a lack of significant coverage)
 * http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/06/column_game_mag_weaseling_your_1.php: "PC Gamer July 2006 ... (They also finally admit that famous gamer-wife Stevie Case is probably not "the next game god," as they predicted in 2000. ..."
 * http://www.1up.com/features/female-spokespeople-public-eye use as a metonym: "one of her producers, under pressure from his publisher, asked if she'd be interested in becoming the next Stevie Case -- a developer and female pro-gamer, who, at the time, had recently posed for Playboy."


 * Including the other sources mentioned above my comment, the video game industry has followed her career and has released enough articles to show that there is lasting interest in Case's life independent of Romero and Quake, though that did start her career. It doesn't fit WP's definition of "inheritance" if her coverage is of her own accord. If the bulk of the coverage is from the early 2000s, so be it. I get your point, but there's more than enough vetted content to write a dedicated article for Case. This subject meets the minimum significant coverage for the general notability guideline. – czar   20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep It didn't take long for editors to come up with persuasive sources. Notability established.  Now, if only someone was in the mood to add them to the page...E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2015 (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.