Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTGame (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 no consensus. This article shows the difficulty in recreating an article with out DRV or AfC so recently (4 months) after a clear delete consensus. While there was clearly a delete consensus before, there is no agreement in this discussion about whether there are now sufficient sources to qualify for GNG. I suggest waiting at least a few more months before any possible renomination as it is possible there will be further coverage making a keep consensus clearer. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

RTGame[edit]

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

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

Original article creator had this restored to draft by C.Fred in March, following it's deletion in December 2020 as failing GNG. They added two sources, covering the subject's videos for the video game Hitman 3, with only light focus on the individual themselves. This puts the article currently at 3 reliable sources, only one with a strong in-depth focus (Verge). The creator then immediately put it back to mainspace, and I later draftified it again. It was sent to AFC and declined. On the talk page, the creator asked the decliner, Berrely about the decline, and Berrely took a neutral stance suggesting Sdkb move it back if they were sure. I immediately opposed, at which point Sdkb moved it to mainspace anyways "Per talk" and replied it would have to go back to AFD. So here we are. Nothing has changed about this subject's notability since December, no content has been added. The only change is that some videos about Hitman 3 got coverage. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong delete. No indication of any notability—certainly no more than the last AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete despite being verified on Twitch. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The article meets GNG/NBIO by any reasonable interpretation. There are three clear qualifying sources (in addition to several more borderline ones), two of which are new since the prior AfD.
  1. Maher, Cian (15 July 2019). "The streamer who built a giant Starbucks island in Minecraft to connect with fans". The Verge. Retrieved 16 September 2020. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link) The Verge is RSP-greenlit, so unquestionably reliable, and it's a full-length reported piece on RTGame, so clearly SIGCOV as well. It was widely accepted as a GNG-qualifier at the prior AfD.
  2. Walker, Ian (27 January 2021). "Hitman Player Tries To Kill Every NPC In One Map With A Single Rubber Ducky". Kotaku. Retrieved 18 March 2021. Another reported article about the RTGame channel, and Kotaku is used as a source at the RSP page itself. New since the last AfD.
  3. Marshall, Cass (27 January 2021). "A Hitman 3 streamer spent hours putting the entire town in a freezer". Polygon. Retrieved 18 March 2021. Another piece entirely about the channel, and another source explicitly greenlit at RSP. Also new since the last AfD.

Each of these are pegged to a specific stream, as would be expected, but the fact that RTGame continues to draw coverage in entirely separate news cycles means that WP:BLP1E concerns do not apply here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per @Sdkb, this article passes WP:GNG. Here's another article from Polygon:
  • Rochefort, Simone de (2020-03-18). "Minecraft defined this decade of video games". Polygon. Retrieved 2021-04-06. As mentioned before, Polygon is RSP–greenlit. This article passes WP:GNG, and WP:BLP WP:BLP1E does not apply. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    • This is literally a single short sentence, not sigcov. And it's definitely a BLP... -- ferret (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Not me forgetting WP:BLP1E. And it's a... whole interview? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I missed that it's a video, fair enough, but interviews are weak for WP:N. -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Fair enough, it's more supporting material than passing through GNG on its own. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I presume theleekycauldron is referring to the video, not the article; I'll watch it later to see if there's anything there, but I agree with ferret that the article isn't SIGCOV on its own. But it doesn't need to be: GNG requires two pieces of significant coverage about the topic of the article (the channel) in reliable sources, and per above we already have three. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
        • To meet WP:GNG it has to be coverage that is independent of the subject, that excludes interviews.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or Re-Draftify (with the requirement of going through AfC should it be brought back to mainspace). Independent sources are borderline, and nothing indicates more could be made/found in the coming weeks. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 01:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • How are full articles about RTGame in RSP-greenlit sources "borderline"? If you have a policy-based issue with them, say what it is. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - Spleodrach (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, situation has changed since the last AfD, now 3 reliable sources have clearly provided SIGCOV of this individual, meaning that they now pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  The Kotaku article says nothing at all about the subject, just quotes him while explaining what's happening in the video. The Polygon is about the same video (I don't know why Sdkb suggests otherwise), but even shorter in content, with one interview quote. This isn't sigcov of the subject. -- ferret (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, as far as I am concerned that is SIGCOV. I see absolutely no reason for coverage of the work of internet personalities to not be SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Ferret, the subject is RTGame, so I don't see how you arrive at the idea that an article about RTGame "says nothing at all about the subject". Is your view that it doesn't count unless it discusses Condren's private life? He's a video game streamer, so naturally what draws coverage is his video game streaming, but it still counts toward GNG.
    And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by emphasizing that Kotaku/Polygon were covering the same stream. That was in January 2021, whereas The Verge was in July 2019, so WP:BLP1E very clearly does not apply. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Not at all that it has to cover his personal life, but something, anything, about him and the channel specifically rather than just the video. My position won't shift with just these 3 sources. Someone is not notable for two "news cycles", one set from industry-specific dailies. First, WP:GNG does not set any sort of "If there's 2 reliable sources, they are in!" bar. Very specifically, GNG outlines how a topic can be presumed notable, and in all cases a discussion may decide otherwise. I maintain this individual is not notable for encyclopedic purposes in the long term at this time. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Quotes like "The joy of games like Hitman for me is that they’re presented with an incredibly straight face, but allow you to do incredibly silly things" (from Polygon) to me clearly help illustrate RTGame's style of play, and are thus saying something about the channel. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Regarding GNG, yes, it has a provision for invoking WP:IAR, just like every policy/guideline on Wikipedia, but I do not consider this an extraordinary circumstance worthy of invoking IAR. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
      • GNG doesn't have a provision to "invoke IAR". Invoking IAR would be to completely ignore GNG in the first place. GNG itself states that even if a topic meets the rough guidelines a discussion may decide otherwise, as notability is simply presumed under GNG and not guaranteed. That's not IAR, that's applying GNG itself. -- ferret (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep or Move to Draft. It should not have been moved to mainspace in the first place. I do think he would pass GNG, but that isn't being shown in the article unfortunately. SWinxy (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Draft. While he certainly passes GNG, There aren't many articles relating to him and essentially nothing on his personal life in the article. Landthins15 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • SWinxy and Landthins15, the entire purpose of WP:GNG is to determine which topics are or are not suitable for a stand-alone article or list, so I'm quite befuddled that you could agree RTGame passes GNG but not !vote to keep. You can object to my undraftification (as Ferret did implicitly in the nomination), but that has no bearing on the subject's notability (and I maintain that it was appropriate: there is no rule against moving a page to mainspace after adding additional sources to address prior concerns). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • True, I wasn't clear on that. My main reason for why it should be draftified is because there's not much in the article (what I meant when I said that it's not being shown in the article), but I'm willing to change my mind to keeping it if the article is expanded. SWinxy (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Have to agree, even though I'm on the delete side of the fence. If you believe it meets GNG, your !vote should be Keep. There's nothing wrong with the article content, it's perfectly fine if a stub. -- ferret (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep or Move to Draft. The article needs serious improvement, but there appears to be significant enough coverage to establish notability Bravetheif (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Draft. Notable sources that are specifically about the streamer in question but poor article. Nathanielcwm (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Draft. The notability is there but the article will have to be rewritten in order to properly demonstrate that. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - Sources cited in article suggest subject meets WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is in, to put it mildly, sub-par state. But WP:GNG seems met so, absent some other concern, we should keep it or, at most, move it to draft as others have suggested.DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Seems like the majority of sources are tweets and YouTube videos. Also, for the closing admin, a Tweet from the article's subject advertising that his page is up for deletion. KidAd • SPEAK 03:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ugh, that'd explain the flood of IPs to the page; at least he's not actively telling them to go !vote, and luckily it doesn't look like any of them have found their way here. It's safe to ignore the flood of Tweet citations recently added to the article, but they don't detract from the genuine reliable sources (see above), and remember that deletion is not cleanup. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Riteboke (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. No actual indication of notability. The sources used are self-published from Youtube hence not even reliable. TheChronium (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2021 (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.