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The result was Withdrawn‎. Clearly there is consensus against. (non-admin closure) Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RTGame[edit]

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

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

I believe that this article is in a poor state, with no foreseeable room for improvement. Much of the cited articles are gaming writers showcasing one of RTGame's stream that they thought was cool; that's not something we can really use in an article. There is a lack of quality commentary of the streams and videos themselves, or his video-making career in general. The plain lack of good sources can be easily seen by looking through the references: most of the article content is sourced to RTGame's own videos or to his Tweets, due to the lack of independent sources addressing his content as a whole. If we cut out all the tweets and videos, all we can mention is that: a) RTGame is a gaming YouTuber, b) existence of 5ish livestreams he did, and c) his rough encounter with the YouTuber moderation system. To be crystal clear: my concern with this article is not of notability, though a case could be made that this person fails notability guidelines(but GNG is not super useful in complex cases like this). I would not be too concerned if this was a random Siberian town that was abandoned in the 16th century. However, this is a Biography of a Living Person. Compounded with the tendency of YouTubers to get themselves into YouTuber dramas, the weak sourcing makes for a real NPOV issue at our hands, even if RTgame manages to stay drama-free. For better or for the worse, readers trust Wikipedia to be a credible source of information. Content like this belong in WikiTubia, where the reader's expectation is much, much lower. A Wikipedia article is more of a burden to the subject than it is a gift, and I believe this article belongs somewhere else than Wikipedia. I am open to draftication too, since there are some useful materials, if more information arises. Disclosure: I am a subscriber to RTGame on YouTube.

A WP:BEFORE search on EBSCOHost, Gscholar, Google, and GNews, didn't really turn up anything that would improve the article. I found some interesting studies that use RTGame as one of the data points, but nothing substantial. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. I'm a little perplexed, as the nominator states that they are not nominating based on notability, but then does not state which policy/guideline they are nominating under, other than WP:BLP (where it is unclear how it applies) and WP:ABOUTME (which is an essay, and would be relevant only if RTGame were here asking for his page to be deleted). I agree that the article at present is overly reliant on primary sources, but that is an eminently fixable issue — just cut out most of that material — not a reason for deletion. The higher-quality sources^[1][2][3][4] provide plenty of material about Condren's YouTube career, which is the reason he's notable and what most of the article should be about. Small biographical details like his birthday are fine to source to him under WP:ABOUTSELF and will not be excessive once the fluff is removed. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm not citing any specific policy, I just think that this is a bad biography with little room for improvement. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak keep Sources 4 and 5, Kotaku and Polygon are solid, but not terribly in-depth. With the rest of them overall, just barely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, Ireland, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep He seems to meet GNG, and the nominator has not actually given a compelling reason to delete. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep per Oaktree b. Most of the sources are crap but the good ones are just enough to pass GNG. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep per the above. The article is in a bit of a weird state as the nominator pointed out, but the subject also seems to be notable by just a hair, so deleting it entirely does not seem like the ideal way of going about this. NegativeMP1 20:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep - Skimmed through some the of sources, there are reliable, independent sources that significantly cover him. He, from what I understand so far, passes the general notability guideline. The article does need to be improved though. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 12:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The Verge, Polygon, and Kotaku are WP:THREE reliable, independent, SIGCOV sources about the subject. Skyshiftertalk 03:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - I have prepared a source assessment table to demonstrate Condren's notability (see also Wikipedia:Source assessment/RTGame):

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Davest3r08
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Kotaku		Pre-2023 Kotaku article, reliable per WP:VG/S.		✔ Yes
Cultured Vultures		User-generated content, accepts paid contributions	Two sentences, passing mention	✘ No
Polygon		Per WP:RSP		✔ Yes
Oceans2vibe		? No prior discussion about this (you are free to open a WP:RSN thread)		? Unknown
Twitter		Per WP:RSP, user generated content		✘ No
Twitter		Per WP:RSP, user generated content		✘ No
YouTube (dead link)		Per WP:RSP, user generated content		✘ No
GamesRadar		Per WP:VG/S		✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the table. I agree that RTGame is notable, but not much info is available about him. Notability only provides a presumption that the article should stay. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Verge article should be added. Skyshiftertalk 15:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.