Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Barcia

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. The discussion seems to have started going round in circles here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Barcia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nominating this for deletion due to the subject matter not being notable by himself. Also the reference used for the article is from a unreliable source according to the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed the link and it is to IGN now, which is a reliable source for gaming news. And being the founder of Simtex is definitely notable. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The IGN link still cites N-Sider, which makes the link an unreliable source. GamerPro64 15:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if you understand how sourcing works. That article sourced direct interviews with relevant people. IGN is not going to publish incorrect information. Flag this article as needing more sources if you must, but this is definitely not delete worthy. Bluedude588 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is actual consensus with the Video Game Project to not use these types of articles. All the way back in 2011. GamerPro64 17:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well I disagree with outright banning a whole news source. Its not hard to look at the article itself and evaluate it for what it is. And regardless, I just added another source to the page, which actually only added to the notability of the subject. He apparently was in charge of the development of Metroid Prime. Since both your notability and reliability claim have been addressed, I am removing the flag for deletion. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not how this works at all. Once the discussion is closed, and if the article is kept THEN it can be removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry I did not realize that. After doing some more reading on the process I am going to suggest for a speedy keep of the article and for the nominator to withdraw their deletion request. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I would much rather get a consensus on whether this should stay up or get deleted. GamerPro64 19:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You might want to edit your reason why then, as what you have there currently is incorrect. You have to justify why it is still up for deletion with the new changes taken into account. Bluedude588 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The source in question is no longer used in the article. I've added six sources to the article now, two of which directly replace the spot where the questionable one was located. So since both the notability and reliability concerns have been completely addressed, I believe that the original complaints around this article are now invalid. I am officially switching my vote to Speedy Keep on this one. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        What are the six sources? It would help determine if the article should be kept if we know if the new sources are reliable or not.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        There is an article from Polygon, two from Gamespot, one from IGN, and one from Business Wire. Also through in a published book. Bluedude588 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 11:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Still Keep~~ Confused why this has been relisted. It's pretty obviously notable. Bluedude588 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC) STRIKING 2ND !VOTE. Britishfinance (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the company may be notable but he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Five sources directly related to the guy isn't enough to make him notable? You gotta support your argument there a bit. Bluedude588 (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (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.