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

Revision as of 17:17, 29 July 2025

Revision as of 17:21, 29 July 2025

Line 19:

:::"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" [[User:Daphne Preston-Kendal|Daphne Preston-Kendal]] ([[User talk:Daphne Preston-Kendal|talk]]) 16:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

::::We have to then ask whether the awards he won count as "significant" under NBIO's definition. I am, personally, not convinced. [[The Streamer Awards]] page seems non-notable on its face, with the only SIGCOV being about the trophy being a hate symbol - not exactly stellar evidence of its significance. Unless the Streamer Awards can be determined as a major honor, this is doubtful - it's more reserved for obviously huge achievements like a Purple Heart, Emmy Award or Presidential Medal of Freedom. [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 16:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::They're new awards in a fairly new category of entertainer, and the only major awards for which an entertainer of that kind would regularly be eligible. One might as well write off ''all'' streamers as non-notable if one is going to go down this path. [[User:Daphne Preston-Kendal|Daphne Preston-Kendal]] ([[User talk:Daphne Preston-Kendal|talk]]) 17:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''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)