Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Crecente (3rd 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 keep. The nominatoer does not really make a policy-based argument, and apart from one other editor all propose to keep the article. Sandstein 08:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Crecente

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

This page should be once again deleted for the previous reasons stated. Even after previous deletion, it has been noted by user DreadedWalrus that Mr. Crecente is very active in the editing of the Kotaku article and as such is likely self promoting himself and his interests once again. This page Brian Crecente should fall under non-notable and self promotion. Thank you. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.6.169 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above nomination was copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Crecente where the IP tried to reopen the old nomination instead of creating a new one Monty ₈₄₅ 22:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the comment to the 1st archived AFD page. Also please note the other user contributions made to the 2nd AFD nomination page, some of those user accounts were created simply for this article and even Mr. Crecentes brother was trying to promote their self interest. Also to make note; with Mr. Crecentes leaving of Kotaku in January, he has become less notable than in previous AFDs 173.246.6.169 (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe this article should be blocked in the future from being created; unless by vote. These AFD nominations are becoming redundant. 173.246.6.169 (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In previous discussion regarding this article, the Google test argument was used, which is considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. 75.53.212.159 (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry. I was beginning to enjoy calling for harsh deletions with a bit of a snarky remark, but I followed the usual methodology of clicking every reference and checking them out. This guy appears in magazine articles, industry profiles, etc. He obviously has established some reputation. In particular if he helped establish Gawker's Kotaku, that is something. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case Wikipedia should, could, would have hundreds of thousands of articles relating to small time video game journalists and industry experts. This logic can be applied to other names in this industry (and likely many others) and many references could be found. Does this mean we should clutter this place with articles that are based essentially on nobodies? My reasoning is that it's similar to small time actors being stricken off of WP constantly, and I wouldn't call it harsh at all considering this article has been deleted twice in the past. And to Brian and Drew; this isn't Linkedin. 173.246.6.169 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation to keep was not based on my view of the importance of the individual. I do not think the encyclopedia would be any worse off if this and many other articles like it were purged. But the policy says: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published^[1] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,^[2] and independent of the subject.^[3] ; this guy seems to have several independent RS, including interviews and so forth. There's nothing saying someone must have won an award to be notable. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sufficient that a few sources exist. They must also be non-trivial. What's out there is trivial coverage, which doesn't count. Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where and how is trivial defined? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to pile on this one comment, but TheSoundAndTheFury is correct, Wikipedia is not a blind collection, but things must be verifiable, not the top X most important people or the X number of articles. If Wikipedia has 30 million or 300 million articles I'd be fine. Biographies should be reliably sourced, neutral and not a collection of dirt. A chief editor of Kotaku is notable, and many other sources post independent articles on him, journalists are not typically as well sourced because they source other things, here we have a journalist who is the subject of journalism. Might as well slap down Nat.Geo's chief editor or Nature's or Nova while we are at it, right? I doubt it would be any different if it was for Newtype or Game Informer. Kotaku is not a blog website, and it pretty notable in gaming, verification and proper sources are all that is required, and even as a bio it meets the minimum. I found more then a dozen 'OK' mentions in other sources, but you know, even full articles on him can seem 'trivial'. The trivial mention is like a sentence in a biography about some tiny class play. A good example is at WP:GNG. Which the subject also meets. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. It was properly deleted last TWO times and should not have been recreated. Sources are simply insufficient to establish notability. Basically, all we have to work with is a "top 20 list" that falls far, far short of the kinds of awards (e.g., a Nobel or a Pulitzer) that the guidelines contemplate as acceptable evidence. I've poked through the Google results including the books and scholar results and I just don't see anything I'd call persuasive. Also, though not relevant to the question of notability, I'm not surprised to learn the subject may have had a hand in writing this. This should go and never return. Msnicki (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Find no reason under WP:DEL-REASON and the guidelines of WP:AUTHOR not to have this article. Kotaku is notable and is referenced often, he was editor-in-chief of a notable website which is consistently highly ranked. Under #3 of WP:AUTHOR, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Editor-in-chief is a major role. Kotaku falls under the scope of a work and it in often cited and commented about. I don't see this article as shameless self-promotion, while it may not be a great article it still merits inclusion. Msnicki, the lack of great sources in the article is not a reason for deletion, the requirement is verification and as a former chief editor it surely these would be acceptable mentions? [1] [2] [3] E3 coverage aside, he seems to be regarded as an important figure in gaming journalism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A chief editor of Kotaku is notable? I'm not convinced that Kotaku is notable. It's just a blog site. Our article on it looks more like corporate spam than anything else; I doubt it would survive AfD. I certainly don't agree that this website is a "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Where are the books, movies and all the articles and reviews about Kotaku? They don't exist. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources and don't contribute to notability. There's just no basis in the guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Notability (people), for notability. Msnicki (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the criteria you cited, ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." We have numerous industry sources that report he is notable and the website is notable itself. Who cares if its a blog format? He was chief editor, and is listed in several lists of most important/influential people in the industry. The fact he is in the top anything in a multi-billion dollar industry is important, especially since Kotaku has weight in the industry. Kotaku is notable, if you disagree then put up for AFD and see how it goes, but I assure you Brian Crecente deserves and article on here because he is recognized by the industry as a leading journalist. We can verify and see his work on many different sites and any change in his career is covered in detail. If they write entire articles on him, he is not a 'nobody'. We wouldn't have dozens of articles about a journalist and not just his work if he was non-notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple claims of notability plus detalied coverage from GamePro magazine which cites Brian Crecente as one of the 20 most influential people in the video game industry. It does not matter here if you WP:LIKEIT or not, this is still a subject to preserve. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A look at the article shows that this source and this source are each dedicated articles to the topic. 5280 and GamePro are established independent sources. Therefore, the topic passes WP:GNG, without a need to evaluate further sources. Regarding the argument in the nomination that this article is "self promotion", this I can't verify. The article was started in July 2009, and as per the talk page, "This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation." Unscintillating (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2012 (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.

^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
^ Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.

[note2-1] What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.

[note3-2] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

[note4-3] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.

[1]

[2]

[3]