Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Software: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:58, 30 July 2025

Latest revision as of 17:42, 5 August 2025

(30 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #F3F9FF); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);">

===[[:Pirate Software]]===

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The consensus opinion was that this BLP depends too much on sources that are of questionable reliability, make little mention of the subject, and/or depend too much on his own statements, all factors that limit a source's contribution towards establishing notability. An alternative favoring a very selective merge had much less support. [[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 16:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

===[[:Pirate Software]]===

<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>

:{{la|1=Pirate Software}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Software|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 29#{{anchorencode:Pirate Software}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1303149094/cur|edits since nomination]])

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Pirate Software}})

{{Not a ballot}}

This article was created in an obvious attempt to circumvent the very recent prior consensus at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbound (video game)]] and the older consensus at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Software (game developer)]], collectively establishing that Wikipedia should not cover this topic. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

*<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People|People]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games|Video games]], and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Washington|Washington]]. [[User:Shellwood|Shellwood]] ([[User talk:Shellwood|talk]]) 15:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)</small>

Line 23 ⟶ 29:

*'''Delete and salt''' per Zx. Not suitable here and NARTIST and NENTERTAINER are obviously not met. I also would hardly call Heartbound a significant enough game to go towards NARTIST. It is not a critically acclaimed or highly notable game - the article was literally deleted for it. By applying the logic that Heartbound contributes towards it, then basically any indie game developer would be able to get an article regardless of how notable their game is (even if it only received the bare minimum reviews to psss GNG). But that isn't how things work. I also would not consider the Streamer Awards to be a significant award. Furthermore, I personally would throw any sort of subject-specific guideline out the window in favor of GNG, because at [[WP:Notability]], it clearly states "{{xt|The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia}}". So the subject doesn't pass GNG, does not have strong enough sourcing, isn't a sufficient topic for an encyclopedia... yeah, I'm comfortable with completely throwing any sort of NPERSON SNG out the window here. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

:'''Keep''' The article has enough reliable sources to warrant its existence, which was the reason the previous articles were deleted. Sure, the Heartbound section may get removed, but the entire article? {{rpa|You guys are on crack.}} [[User:Dabmasterars|Dabmasterars]] ([[User talk:Dabmasterars|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Dabmasterars|contribs]]) 17:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

::Which of the sources are reliable? [[User:TheDigamma|TheDigamma]] ([[User talk:TheDigamma|talk]]) 17:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Which of the sources ''aren't'' reliable? We’ve got Eurogamer, IGN, the Times of India, the Verge, Mashable ... there are some other sites cited which I haven't heard of, but I'm not a huge gamer myself so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (personally — someone who knows more about what sources in this subject area are reliable could maybe point to any particular problematic ones). The article would probably stand up to fair scrutiny even with only those five, though. [[User:Daphne Preston-Kendal|Daphne Preston-Kendal]] ([[User talk:Daphne Preston-Kendal|talk]]) 17:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Line 46 ⟶ 52:

*'''Delete and SALT''' Anything of note can, and has, been mentioned in the respective article itself. If done properly this page would be an amalgam of "See main article" links over and over again. He won an award? Mention that on the award page. He caused issues for Stop Killing Games? Mention that on the Stop Killing Games page. Once you get past that, there's nothing left to mention. [[User:Padillah|Padillah]] ([[User talk:Padillah|talk]]) 22:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''Merge with SKG''' per Aaron Liu. I agree with the arguments above by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, TheDigamma, and TheAlienAdventures as to why this article should be deleted, though I believe the section on [[Stop Killing Games]] has enough notability to significantly add onto the article on that topic. I am hesitant to believe that this article is a circumvention attempt per Daphne Preston-Kendal, though I will note that I do recognize a few editors on this page that also seem to have participated in the development in the Heartbound article when I lurked during the AfD and I am concerned with biased editing in favor of the streamer due to negative comments made about this page in his personal Discord. [[User:UppercutPawnch|<span style="color:blue;">'''Uppercut'''</span><span style="color:red;">'''Pawnch'''</span>]] ([[User talk:UppercutPawnch|talk]]) 01:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

:*'''Delete''' the entire article seems to hinge on two events with one being more questionable on the notable side. This seems to be WP:SINGLEEVENT. Though of course with only with two events as opposed to one.

:'''Delete''' the entire article seems to hinge on two events with one being more questionable on the notable side. This seems to be WP:SINGLEEVENT. Though of course with only with two events as opposed to one.

:i could very well see the deletion of the wow controversy due to its quality and notability. Which would further bring into question the notability of this current wiki. [[User:LordOfPeepz|LordOfPeepz]] ([[User talk:LordOfPeepz|talk]]) 06:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' and salt to prevent recreations in the near future. <big>[[User:Yue|<span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">''Yue''</span>]][[User talk:Yue|🌙]]</big> 07:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' since I don't think the recent controversy surrounding SKG or every other petty drama he's been warrants an article. [[User:Majoriminorionoj|Majoriminorionoj]] ([[User talk:Majoriminorionoj|talk]]) 09:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''Merge with SKG''' per above [[User:1timeuse75|1timeuse75]] ([[User talk:1timeuse75|talk]]) 14:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''Either Merge with SKG or Draftify.''' I would rather not delete and/or salt unless there is absolutely no choice. [[User:ShawnIsHere|<span style="color:#ff0000;">Shawn</span>]][[Special:Contributions/ShawnIsHere|<span style="color:#00cc00;">Is</span>]][[User_talk:ShawnIsHere|<span style="color:#0000ff;">Here</span>]]: Now in colors 22:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

:Delete it! [[Special:Contributions/2803:9800:B018:7EE1:D95F:CDFC:75EA:3723|2803:9800:B018:7EE1:D95F:CDFC:75EA:3723]] ([[User talk:2803:9800:B018:7EE1:D95F:CDFC:75EA:3723|talk]]) 02:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. Controversial internet figures are frequent subjects to a certain knee-jerk response from many on Wikipedia, which is to purge and hide articles and mentions of these figures, regardless of the scale of their following, their notable works and/or their documentation by reputable sources. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a repository for all things "internet drama", but some definitely take this concept way too far, creating gaps in information leading to unnecessarily poor and spotty coverage surrounding phenomena, events and subcultures found on the internet. [[User:A Simple Fool|A Simple Fool]] ([[User talk:A Simple Fool|talk]]) 13:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

*: [[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]] please. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 17:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

:::Where did I assume bad faith? I merely stated that a certain attitude towards internet culture topics leads to Wikipedia's coverage of internet-based topics being lower quality and less cohesive than it really needs to be. [[User:A Simple Fool|A Simple Fool]] ([[User talk:A Simple Fool|talk]]) 18:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

::::Well you assert that this policy based deletion nomination is a just “knee jerk response“ while providing no policy based arguments to counter it. That is not arguing while assuming good faith. It is even not a valid argument. [[User:TheDigamma|TheDigamma]] ([[User talk:TheDigamma|talk]]) 01:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. This guy seems to have a long history of notoriety for more than one thing, and the article's sourcing is mostly credible. There's already gaps of information about notable people on Wikipedia, just because they don't meet certain purity tests. [[User:chiffre01|chiffre01]] ([[User talk:chiffre01|talk]]) 14:50, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

*:In what way is this article credible and notable? Others and myself have listed many arguments towards deletion based on Wikipedia Policy. What are your policy based reasons for keeping it? [[User:TheDigamma|TheDigamma]] ([[User talk:TheDigamma|talk]]) 00:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

*::Multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage

*::Notable achievements in gaming, streaming, and media

*::Industry recognition and controversy with measurable public impact

*::Multiple articles focused solely on his activities [[User:Chiffre01|Chiffre01]] ([[User talk:Chiffre01|talk]]) 14:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

*:::I do agree that all the citation needed stuff should be removed and the Mashable sources as well. [[User:Chiffre01|Chiffre01]] ([[User talk:Chiffre01|talk]]) 12:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

:'''Delete and Salt.''' I agree with the original claim, its an attempt to circumvent the very recent prior consensus on the heartbount page. Sources here are not reliable either, not any concensus at all on what should be here too and the current article is already bias. [[User:Liamedits1000|Liamedits1000]] ([[User talk:Liamedits1000|talk]]) 22:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. Although incomplete, nothing in this article is untrue or lacks citation/credibility. The attempt to delete this is clearly a whitewashing attempt by fans and shills. To be blunt this could be far worse than it is as there are plenty of first hand character references that damage his reputation far more than the SGK and Warcraft incidents. [[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:3A7B:A7A0:C1ED:9DAF:8C3E:F195|2604:3D09:3A7B:A7A0:C1ED:9DAF:8C3E:F195]] ([[User talk:2604:3D09:3A7B:A7A0:C1ED:9DAF:8C3E:F195|talk]]) 22:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

*:Please [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]. [[User:TheAlienAdventures|TheAlienAdventures]] ([[User talk:TheAlienAdventures|talk]]) 23:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

*:Assume good faith and a core reason stated and why this is up for deletion is that it circumvents deletions of his game devloper page and heartbound the game. [[Special:Contributions/80.0.132.246|80.0.132.246]] ([[User talk:80.0.132.246|talk]]) 01:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

*'''Merge''' to SKD any details missing that may provide valuable, verified context (otherwise redirect). Any notability he has is in connection with SKG, which can be adequately summed up there. - [[User:Cukie Gherkin|Cukie Gherkin]] ([[User talk:Cukie Gherkin|talk]]) 10:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:var(--color-error, red)">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>