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 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RTGame[edit]

RTGame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I don't believe he meets WP:GNG based on the available sourcing. The article from The Verge is good, but there's just nothing else that matches it, and we can't keep an article based on one source. The Dextero article is basically fluff, and neither 2oceansvibe nor StylesRant (which primarily produces content about...hair) strike me as reliable sources. Anything else I found was just name-drops, nothing even close to the article from The Verge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that "The streamer who built a giant Starbucks island in Minecraft to connect with fans" from The Verge definitely counts as one. Beyond that, we have a few different sources that are clearly significant, independent, and secondary, but which are somewhat borderline in reliability. Looking at them:
  • Dextero (which published "RTGame goes crazy after spending 13 days to finally catch shiny Pokemon") is an e-sports news website; it looks alright enough to me, but e-sports is decidedly not my area of expertise.
  • Oceans2vibe (which published "Four Gaming Channels Your Non-Gaming Partner Will Actually Watch With You") looks like a small, general-purpose South African news site. The fact that they don't give a full author name isn't great, but apart from that I don't have reason to distrust its reliability more than any other local news publication.
  • StylesRant (which published "Are Plumbella and RTgame dating? All you need to know") is, as you say, a fashion publication, but I don't see writing about a gamer's relationship as out of depth for such a publication, and it's not really our job to judge whether their articles are sufficiently topical for their brand. Based on this author bio, they appear to edit submissions, which is a marker of reliability. (We should also be careful not to inadvertently fall back on any gendered stereotypes about style publications not being serious enough for WP.)
  • Lastly, I just added a Cultured Vultures article that talks about RTGame deserving credit for the Minecraft Renaissance. It looks to be another gaming publication, and it likewise indicates that its stories are edited.

So, where that leaves us is one clearly qualifying source and four that are each borderline, but could each plausibly be argued to qualify. I'd like to hear from an editor or two with more gaming articles experience before casting a formal !vote, but based on the above I'm leaning towards keep. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just cannot take seriously the fact that any website producing a fluff piece that consists of "wow a dude catches a Pokemon, it sure took him awhile" is supposed to be an indication of notability. I can't. I'm too old.

2oceansvibe is a "solely-owned online news platform", ie, it's basically no more than a multi-contributor blog. Their about page makes a biiiiiiig deal about their clickthroughs and marketing partnerships, and doesn't waste a breath telling you about their editorial process or contributors, so no, we can't assume it's reliable. In any case, the "article" cited is a listicle that has three sentences of content, so it hardly counts as in-depth coverage.

StylesRant is a comically low-audience hairstyle blog, and the content in question is little more than a tabloid piece. Are they dating? Are they not? Who knows? It's not about "gender stereotypes" (but thanks for assuming I'm a man, I guess) it's about the fact that we shouldn't be taking what amounts to clickbait gossip from low-audience publications as a reliable source of notability.

Finally, the Cultured Vulture article you added spends three sentences mentioning RTGame in an article about Minecraft generally. Once again, it's not in-depth coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated by Sdkb. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Superastig, I know you have this thing where you don't respond to comments at AfD, but did you actually look at the sources in question? Aside from The Verge, how do you defend the others as being in-depth or reliable? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Verge is the only encyclopedia-quality source in the above list. The rest are not known for having quality standards. czar 00:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While The Verge is a WP:RS, the other sources in the article are considered unreliable per WP:RS/P or WP:VG/RS (YouTube, Facebook posts, Dexerto) rely upon user submissions (CulturedVulture, StylesRant) or do not give a masthead or information about their editorial team (2oceansvibe, who only lists an editor-in-chief). Google did not provide additional results, various newspaper databases produced passing mentions and JSTOR and NYT did not yield results. There isn't enough significant coverage in reliable sources for this person to pass WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Dexerto, while a usable source, is considered unreliable per WP:VG/RS, meaning that it does not contribute to notability. I am not convinced on whether 2oceansvibe is reliable or not, but their article really only gives him three short sentences amounting to about a paragraph of coverage, not enough for SIGCOV in my book. Cultured Vultures, which I personally do consider reliable, also only gives him about a paragraph, not enough to be SIGCOV either. I found a couple of other passing mentions in reliable sources, but as far as I can tell nothing that would contribute to notability other than The Verge article exists. As a result, he fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Given the above, I'm persuaded that the Dextero piece probably doesn't count. I could still see a case for GNG being made that uses the StylesRant piece, but if that's not persuasive to others, it looks like the page may not be ready for mainspace yet. It's fairly plausible that another piece to supplement the Verge profile one will come along at some point, though, so I'd request draftification over deletion to make it easier to bring back should such coverage come along. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really not trying to hassle you, but can you explain in what way you see StylesRant as being a reliable indicator of notability? It is effectively a click-farming blog that primarily produces listicles about hairstyles, which of late appears to be attempting to pivot into "reporting" tabloid-level YouTuber gossip. I'm frankly not even sure one of their four contributors is a real human, considering I found zero social media under his name and his photo only pops up on stock sites. One of the others only ever "wrote" one article, so basically it's a two-person blog.
  In terms of audience reach, although this isn't a perfect metric, their Twitter has 43 followers. Total. For comparison, beauty blog Into the Gloss dings just under 186,000 followers, and LADbible, which sometimes reports on YouTuber news, has 2.5 million. Being mentioned on StylesRant is no more an indicator of "significant attention by the world at large" than being mentioned on my personal tumblr would be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  PMC, it's not any hassle; discussion is appropriate here. I'm looking at this from a fairly by-the-book GNG lens (if we were going in more of an IARish direction, the case would be that the sources establish RTGame has had a meaningful enough impact on the world that an encyclopedic stub about him is a net positive). From that lens, what's important is whether the source is reliable and independent, not whether it's high-audience. It's clearly independent, since it's got no affiliation whatsoever to RTGame; if anything, the fact that it's style-focused rather than gaming-focused is a plus, since it shows that there's general interest in him beyond just ultra-niche gaming circles. And regarding reliability, as I mentioned above, I noticed that an author bio on the site has Rice is the senior editor for StylesRant.Com, with a focus on writing and editing stories. That indicates that they're editing the work they publish, which is enough for me to deem it reliable for the basic facts it's supporting in the article. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rice is the only active contributor to the site; if she's editing anything, it's her own work, without oversight or independent fact-checking. Therefore, the site is no more than a self-published source, and an SPS should never be used to determine notability, especially for a BLP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the site's history, it seems the three other contributors listed haven't published anything in a few months, so that moves me into agreement with you about StylesRant. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:36, 6 December 2020 (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.