Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Angry Gamer

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. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Angry Gamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Majority of the sources are unnecessary, extended quotes in which the topic is mentioned in passing. There is nary a source that discusses the independent notability of the publication. Remove the passing mentions and primary sources, and we don't have enough content to write an encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic. czar 20:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. czar 20:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep please be wary of turtles all the way down logic in regard to establishing media sources: to even be recognized as a notable source to begin with all sources had to be noted by something else. You can't do infinite regress. WakandaQT (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your post, but are you mixing up the concepts of reliability and notability? We have articles on news outlets that we don't consider reliable sources, and likewise there are news outlets that we consider reliable that haven't been written about by other sources. To be notable for Wikipedia, it would have to be covered by reliable sources; those reliable sources do not also have to be notable for WP themselves.--Alexandra^IDV 09:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seconded. I could see how this could be applied to reliability discussions, but not notability discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way it applies to notability also is if I supplied a source which gave focus to the site, you could argue that source isn't itself notable enough for that focus to be notable. Although I think we could have an easier time of independently establishing notability through something impartial like circulation (physical publications) or visitor count (online). WakandaQT (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thats not how it works. If that's how it worked, any article creator like yourself could vaguely handwave away any notability concern. And it really doesn't work that way with what is essentially a WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subject fails the WP:GNG due to a lack of third party significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I am sure this has been deleted before, as not notable, nothing has changed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Slatersteven: This page hasn't been deleted before, unless I'm missing something? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name looks familure, I am sure we have had an article on this bloke before.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • user:slatersteven might be thinking of Angry Video Game Nerd, similar name. WakandaQT (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of third party significant coverage. Jontesta (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article itself seems to be trying to make the case for notability by merely basing it off the number of citations. Cf. §§ "Gaming review" and "Censorship review". That's not how Wikipedia does things—the number of times a particular source is cited by other sources doesn't matter, what matters is significant coverage in third party sources, which does not exist. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Daily Dot not qualify? https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/gamergate-boner-culture-mortal-kombat-11/ is entirely a response to OAG. WakandaQT (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That source isn't helpful to this subjects notability - it's almost entirely around GamerGate and Mortal Kombat. Much like the other sources in the article, it gives very little to work with as far as content that can be usable about him in an encyclopedia article (significant coverage.) I mean, how do you constructively add "He said some controversial stuff and got dunked on by some random Twitter users for it"? That approach is more or less what got the article nominated for deletion in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.