Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Angry Video Game Nerd

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Although this is a couple of days early, it is clear this article will not be deleted. Therefore I am invoking WP:SNOW. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Angry Video Game Nerd

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

This is an article about a Youtube show. While this is a long, well-written article, virtually every citation is for material from the creator of the show. I can't find sufficient, reliable, independent sources to show that it meets the WP:GNG. I posted a cleanup tag a month ago,[1] but no sources have been added. Will Beback talk 23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this and this and an award win from Mashable; kind of on the fence as far as sources go, but the award would suggest that he meets WP:WEB. (Also, he's hosted on Cinemassacre, not just YouTube.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is dvdtalk.com a reliable source? Your second link, Aonuma: "The Legend of Zelda-serie heeft tijdlijn", might go to the wrong page. If the article is kept, it'd have to be virtually stubbed and rebuilt based on independent sources. Also, is the Mashable award "well-known"? The material on it in Mashable is all self-published. Will Beback talk 23:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just searched the Proquest newspaper archive. Out of 39 hits, 35 are to press releases, 3 are to articles in the Jerusalem Post about an app they sponsored which won, and only one paper, the Orange County Register, has an independent article about a finalist for the award. So I don't think it necessarily qualifies as a well-known award. Will Beback talk 00:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I had figured Mashable was notable since it was enough for other websites to be kept. Still, I suck at source finding so I'll defer to others. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you know what you were looking for when you found Aonuma: "The Legend of Zelda-serie heeft tijdlijn"? I searched for "nerd" on that website and that page, and didn't find anything. Will Beback talk 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - PS: an anon keeps deleting the AFD notice. The page may have to be semi-protected until the AFD is done. Will Beback talk 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes to AFD just for completion; also warned IP for repeated removal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's this from March 3rd: Top 20 Angry Video Game Nerd Freak Outs by David Guzman, Assistant Editor of AllMediaNY. It could qualify as a valid third-party source. And it's recent (dug up from Google News), so potentially if we delay the verdict on this, more references will appear in time.—Biosketch (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the list of episodes was up for deletion and kept just under 2 months ago. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes (2nd nomination). I understand the rationale of including this in the nomination as if AVGN is determined non-notable, the list should go too. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with cleanup (excessive NFC) and recommended switch to the true main topic, James Rolfe. Since Rolfe does both AVGN and the Spike segments, and runs Cinemassacre, an article that covers all of these from the perspective of being a BLP would be better suited, w/ redirects as appropriate. This would keep the list of episodes since the DVDs themselves are notable (DVDtalk sources, at minimum). As for more sources on Rolfe, [2], [3], [4] for some (but again, focusing on Rolfe overall, not just AVGN). Also, I would call to light the recent deletion issues over the [Signpost] about the AFD/DRV of Old Man Murray, and recommend we aren't so hasty here. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also more sources can be found listed on this page [5] - recognizing that not all of them are RSs but more than a handful are, there's definitely sources out there. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - D'oh! I've been aware of the Swedish gaming magazine's interview for a good long time, but never got around to integrating it to the article, which brings us here. Gah. Sorry. With that and all the rest I say Keep. (And yes, non-English sources are acceptable. They are more cumbersome and English ones are to be preferred if there's a choice, but non-English ones are necessary on a project of our scope.) --Kiz o r 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no way this'll be anything by kept. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a major internet show that has recived an exteremly large amount of notability. I would suggest adding a few new sources though. Skullbird11 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but by all means, please continue to nominate this article for deletion. Perhaps it will make it on to the list of lamest deletion wars. Shakzor (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be too soon to add this. The shortest war listed on that page had 6 deletions attempts and three DRVs and counting the episode page for this topic we so far only has 4 AFD and no DRVs to the best of my knowledge. It may be possible that this should be added in the future but not yet.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the unnecessary summary. If you care to read my previous comment a bit more carefully, you will realize that I was not suggesting that this be added to that list just yet. Shakzor (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not read the original comment carefully enougfh.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale by Masem along with sourcing found. --Teancum (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on, saying "it's just a YouTube show" is the equivalent of saying "it's just a Wikipedia article." More than 200m upload views, rabid fan base, etc.68.55.210.138 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yee-up. If we are to start deleting content for being stupid, we should start with our articles on wars. If we are to start deleting content for being obscure, that must include countless articles on regional customs, folklore, historical events and other things that are vital to an encyclopedia. In fact, an objective popularity requirement might well mean that we should delete all our articles on lesser-known species and much of our coverage of physics, biology, et cetera. A popularity requirement without an objective standard would destroy the site. Will Beback, could you explain why the show's origins is relevant here? --Kiz o r 12:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Masem. Article could use some work down to add some more reliable sources. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Skullbird and Masem. -Drdisque (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masem, but oppose rename per WP:COMMONNAME CTJF83 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a well-written, informative article that does meet Wikipedia's standards. Deletion is way overkill here and would not improve Wikipedia one bit. This seems to me like a test-the-waters kind of nom and probably shouldn't have been made. -- œ^™ 07:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't come close to meeting Wikiepdia's standards. Per WP:PSTS, articles should be based mostly on secondary and tertiary sources. This article is based almost entirely on the episodes themselves, which are primary sources for this article. to bring it into compliance with WP standards it needs to be re-written based on new sources. Will Beback talk 04:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, articles should be based mostly on secondary and tertiary sources in order to verify their content and determine notability. So what are you trying to verify here? What is "challenged or likely to be challenged"? I don't see anything that can't be verified from the given primary sources. Unless, are you seriously questioning AVGN's notability as a modern internet video game review show? or Youtube site? or viral video? or internet meme? It's notable in all these categories. And everything can be verified from the given sources. -- œ^™ 10:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Verifiability and notability are two separate issues. What Will Beback is asking for is evidence that the topic is notable. As notability is not simply popularity or page views or even personal attribution, he's completely right to ask "where is verification that the topic is notable?" Now to answer him, we've shown in here a large number of sources that demonstrates that AVGN is notable, but yet are not presently in the article prior to this AFD. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Independent secondary sources are required to show notability. Just because a a video gets a Xillion hits on Ztube doesn't make it notable. The topic has to have been noted independently, and there was little sign in the article that that had happened to AVGN. It's the same standard for garage bands, political ideologies, etc. I'd be happy for the article to stay and I hope that everyone who's participated in this AFD will each add at least one outside source to the article, settling the question of its notability. The fact that it's entirely based on primary sources will still need to be resolved. Will Beback talk 09:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One reliable source I've found: [6] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be kept. Very useful information for the general public as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.159.162 (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You would not remove information on a regular TV show even if it was a bad and canceled tv show would you? Ignoring it for its chosen channel of distribution is just strange. Would his page on imdb be allowed as source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.34.95.20 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not since IMDB is user edited. However, there appear to be much better sources for this and an emerging consensus to keep this so baring a flood of deletion comments I don't see anything to worry about.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasoning of numerous others.--Yankees10 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep – Including what Masem and others have provided, he also made CNN. –MuZemike 21:11, 11 March 2011 (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.