Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Video Game Critic (2nd nomination)


 * 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 is that there is not enough third party coverage to write a dedicated enyclopedia article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Video Game Critic
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Current article is refbombed with passing mentions and self-published sources. Underneath it, the topic not the subject of significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The current article's third party refs are a collection of passing mentions and are not about the site/Mrozek at all. (Also our WPVG project itself does not consider the site a reliable source.) I searched multiple databases—including a ProQuest firehose of 50+ databases—for more sources and did not find more than press release-y or passing mentions of the site and Mrozek. – czar   12:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The nomination appears to be right on - the sources all seem to be first party, unreliable (Mobygames), or extremely brief passing mentions that aren't really about the subject. If someone can dig up some better sources, I'd reconsider...but I'm not seeing it. (It doesn't help that the generic nature of the name shows up with a ton of false-positives in source searching though.) Sergecross73   msg me  15:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep- VGC is very much a reliable source. With his vast collection of reviews, including for rare systems like the Arcadia 2001, and he's considered one of the best sources for Atari 2600 reviews, as well as for his comprehensive console reviews. And besides, since when are the Seattle Times and the San Francisco Chronicle not reliable sources?Logan The Master
 * You are arguing the wrong points. We are not discussing whether or not he's reliable, we're discussing whether or not he's notable. Very different things. If you want to discus whether or not he's a reliable source, you'd discuss that at WP:VG/S's talk page. (He's currently not listed at all there, so its undetermined there.) As for the rest of what you said, yes, the Seattle Times and SF Chronicle would be reliable sources, but they don't offer significant coverage. The SF Chronicle only mentions them very briefly - merely 2 sentences in an article largely about something else, and the Seattle one, I can't really tell, as its showing up as a dead link to him. Let me know if someone can provide a working link to it, but my guess is that with the article title  "Computer tools, toys round out wish list", I'm guessing it wasn't an article centered around covering the website in significant detail. Sergecross73   msg me  18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor point: "Video Game Critic, The" actually is listed at WP:VG/RS, though we are indeed discussing notability and not reliability. Also I couldn't find a backup of "Computer tools, toys round out wish list" on Internet Archive, ProQuest, or LexisNexis, so I'm removing the ref. – czar   19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I must have done my search with "the" at the beginning of "The Video Game Critic", which didn't come up with any hits since its listed as "Video Game Critic, The". I'd strike my comment, but since he's only on the checklist, and with an "unreliable" x on it, it seems his reliability could use more discussion all the same, but at that venue, of of course, not here. Thanks for pointing this out to me though. Sergecross73   msg me  19:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - have to agree with nom Delete - all my search turned up is the generic team to other people Keep - previous AfD establishes notability  —Мандичка YO 😜 23:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - I don't know how much stock I'd put into that first AFD. I don't think they looked very closely at the references; much like the searches now, its mostly trivial passing mentions. No one seemed to look close enough to realize that 5 years ago, they just started piling on the keeps when they saw the (passing mention) source list. Sergecross73   msg me  00:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm after closer consideration, I think you're right. I was impressed by the SF Chronicle one but it just doesn't count as substantial, and the First Arkansas News is a self-published blog. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whether or not the site is a RS is pretty much irrelevant to this AfD, as being a RS doesn't automatically mean notability. It can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's not a guarantee. As far as the sourcing goes, it's fairly light and by large the sources are all primary in that they link to stuff he's written and to sites that host his content. Could they help show that he could possibly now pass as a RS? Sure. Could they show notability? Nope. The citations in academic/scholarly sources don't really do anything either since one is dead (meaning that we cannot verify how usable it was as a source) and the other does not mention him at any length. He seems to be moderately popular but popularity has never been a thing that would give notability. Like being a RS it can make it more likely that there may be coverage, but it's never a guarantee and I've seen gaming personalities and websites with higher fan followings fail notability guidelines. I couldn't find anything via a search that would really prove that Mrozek or his website are ultimately notable enough for an article, so this is a delete on my end. If anyone wants to userfy the content then I have no problem with that, but it might be an extremely long wait before he passes the GNG threshold. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Of course, quotes from a subject can't be used to bolster the notability of the subject. What the subject needs to meet the GNG is to receive significant coverage in reliable sources, and that's what's not there.  Nha Trang  Allons! 17:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the definition of "significant coverage" being used here? It's not at all clear to me what the "delete" group wants to see here, and I'm not particularly inclined to spend my time extensively researching the issue without exact clarity on what will be good enough -- an experience akin to trying to find a restaurant when the other person keeps saying "No, that's not what I want..." For example, The Blade (Toledo) has a June 4, 2013 article on DRM in video games, and has a paragraph-long quote from Mrozek ("David Mrozek, aka The Video Game Critic, founder of the site videogamecritic.com"), who's clearly being consulted for his expertise in the field. That seems more than good enough to me -- or will nothing less than a published, feature article on Mrozek and the site suffice to quell the trigger-happy folks? I apologize if this sounds irritable, but given the number of absolute garbage articles on WP, it's kind of appalling to me that we're spending time and effort on discussing the notability of one of the best-known VG review sites on the Internet. (No doubt I'll get a bunch of acronyms and WP jargon in reply, to which I look forward with great eagerness...) Goldenband (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clearly defined where it was first linked above. You said it yourself—that Blade article would be about "DRM in video games" and not about Mrozek. We don't have a single reliable source to back your claim that the site is "one of the best-known VG review sites on the Internet" without resorting to original research. Newspapers pull quotes from non-notable expertise all the time. The question is whether the coverage is wide and dedicated to the subject, which it is not in this case. The rest of your comment is gratuitously condescending. – czar   04:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But that definition (which I most assuredly read before posting) is very clear that the article subject "need not be the main topic of the source material", and yet that seems to be the standard folks are pushing for here. Hence my query: are we requiring "main topic" or not, and if not, what's the objective threshold for a mention to be non-trivial? As for the condescension, it wasn't intended as such -- Nha Trang's description as "sardonic" is closer to the mark -- but I make no secret of the fact that I've always viewed deletionism as a pox on Wikipedia, especially when it defies common sense (anyone who spends any time on video game forums can attest that the site is a primary touchstone for video game reviews) (and yes, I know that's not the standard we use, but at a certain point I get exasperated by the school of thought that seems to prioritize deleting content above creating it). Goldenband (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's ironic you're being sardonic about jargon and acronyms, given that video games are among the most acronym and jargon-filled field outside of electrical engineering. That being said, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Wikipedia operates under various policies and guidelines, and rather than type out a couple pages of text, we refer to those guidelines through linked acronyms.  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it's also no surprise that in any organization or field, the heavy use of acronyms, etc. tends to encourage a hermetic and bureaucratic environment -- a criticism of WP that's always been 100% on point -- and is often designed to make the interlocutor feel stupid or excluded. That's a wholly uncontroversial idea and goes back to Orwell, if not further; also see rule 5 on this page . Goldenband (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Mark it with   instead. The topic itself seems notable but the article just hasn't been done right, sadly. -- ☣  Anar  chyte  ☣ 10:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , what good would marking it with refimprove do? I said that I searched multiple databases for sources and found no significant coverage. You'd be tagging for sources that don't exist. A topic can't "seem" notable if it isn't covered in depth by reliable sources. – czar   11:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Czar here, unless you can provide some sort of reasoning/proof behind why you feel it "seems notable", this isn't really a valid approach... Sergecross73   msg me  13:49, 26 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.