Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. A good demonstration here that longwinded arguments are rarely convincing ones. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Sent Gaming

[edit]
Heaven Sent Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business website. Almost no hits on a Google search. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep", not a business though, it's a website with enough sources to warrant a stub. 97.123.55.117 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep", this subject is listed on several databases. And, I've been doing library research, and the tertiary sources will be added once research is complete; though they're not required for the article to exist. More time is needed for this article to become more than a stub. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong Keep" just found an AMAZING search option on Google to find more information on this topic. Google Search DunDunDunt (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: DunDunDunt (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
"Keep", I wouldn't think that I, or anything Isabel and I are connected with, would be within the scope of Wikipedia. But, DunDunDunt seems interested in doing research on my Heaven Sent Gaming project. And, according to MediaWiki Commons they say that entry into authority records, in reference to Isabel and I, "makes both of you relevant and therefore photos of you guys are in scope of the project". I don't think I'm notable or interesting; but, apparently others are arguing otherwise. Smile Lee (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Smile Lee (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
I have added an image to this article, adding images is all I will be doing to edit this or any article related to me or Heaven Sent Gaming. I'm not interested in myself as an encyclopedic subject. Smile Lee (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong Keep" I change my vote, after reading what Mr. Lucero said I will be supporting him and Heaven Sent Gaming "as an encyclopedic subject". I was only moderately interested in this. Mostly I like to edit skateboarding articles on the 'pedia. Ever thought of skating Mario? Maybe at least do an HSGplays episode of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater!!! 97.123.55.117 (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — 97.123.55.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You've already !voted once already. What is this, vote early and vote often?  Philg88 ♦talk 05:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've corrected my double vote, and I'll assume good faith that 97.123.55.117 had a another accidental double vote. I think I've corrected it. Wikipedia's AFD is Consensus, that "is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." I wouldn't think to double vote. Back to consensus, in my prior post I refuted the "Almost no hits on a Google search" argument. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not a new user, I have more than a few edits, I don't care much about this subject. My current project is Al Hurricane and the discography of that musician. Also, we can't know the entire contribution history of the anonymous user, since they cycle through IPs. Smile Lee (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Notability failure. I'm not seeing the required significant coverage in reliable independent sources.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the Collins College newsletter, an accredited American higher learning institution, and verifiable with a cache. Also, The Albuquerque Tribune tidbit is unfortunately unverifiable via any online cache I can find. Never-the-less, there are several other reliable independent sources. "significant coverage" is followed properly as well; the article is already a few paragraphs long and only relies on three primary sources thus far. This subject's "significant coverage" is also covered via each of it's individual published titles, and those related to the subject; meaning the article has plenty of coverage to allow for growth. NOTE HOWEVER I don't think that their individual creations or creators warrant individual articles yet, until coverage is large enough on each individual subject, this article SHOULD be used as comprehensive on the subject. DunDunDunt (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88, NinjaRobotPirate, and Smile Lee: thank you for helping to make this article more reliable and allowing me to explain its subject's notability better. DunDunDunt (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'd like to note that this article was requested YEARS ago, Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Internet_and_tech_culture. 97.123.7.170 (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, just edited the article, I would recommend a full blown "History" section to be composed into a sequential set of events in a narrative fashion. The "Works" section will be a nice resource, but that "History" section I mentioned would be a pretty beastly project. After a few searches around the 'net there are more than enough notable sources to work with. The annoying part is that this subject's fields and publishing history are such a pain in the ass to reference in a single Google Search (YOU LITERALLY HAVE TO LOOK UP EVERY SINGLE TOPIC SEPARATELY! JUST TO FIND SOME NOTABLE SOURCES!!!). This article wouldn't just be a joy to have on Wikipedia, which I believe it would, it would also help out anyone trying to find out some god-damned information about these subjects! No wonder this was requested so long ago. 97.123.7.170 (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC) — 97.123.7.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Being placed on the "requested article" list has no influence on notability. Kolbasz (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability not established. WP:NCORP requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The Albuquerque Tribune is the only reliable, independent secondary source in the article, but the citation is only a trivial mention. Kolbasz (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Somehow didn't see the AfD notice and started to write my own, so will just paste it here: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It appears all of the many sources here either published by the organization, social networking sites like LinkedIn, or not about Heaven Sent Gaming but about one of the comics/bands they publish. The WP article seems to focus on the individual titles they happened to publish and seems largely promotional (especially given the sourcing). --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closer - Please note the abundance of SPAs, similar voting style, enthusiasm, and existing connection to the article among seemingly all of the Keep votes. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be more specific, all of the keep votes so far: DunDunDunt (page creator), Smile Lee (seems to be an owner/founder of the subject of the article), 97.123.55 (SPA), 97.123.7.170 (SPA). Note the shared enthusiasm, with exclamation points and whatnot, and in particular the shared range of the two IPs. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I noticed that, too, but it's probably best to assume good faith and chalk it up to shared enthusiasm by a small cadre of supporters. I nominated another article created by the same user, and it has attracted none of the enthusiastic repeat votes of this one. If these were truly sock puppets, I think they would have also posted on the other article's AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, thanks for following up on that. I'll just clarify that I don't think everybody saying keep is a sock -- just that it consists of the page creator, page subject, and two IPs which, in addition to being from the same IP range, share a similar style of comment, having both changed keep to strong keep, using lots of exclamation marks, and so on. --— Rhododendrites talk |  18:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also note that, though Mario is the subject of the page, he does not seem to have any intention of keeping up this article. So it's not like he seems to have a dog in the fight, and he has not re-voted. I got a bit pissed off last night about finding sources on this subject, that was what the exclamation marks were about, they were not about my excitement for the article. I would also like to reiterate that I feel as though that this topic has the notability when in combination with it's related subjects, which are as of now, not entirely covered in this article. 97.123.7.170 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep: it passes WP:NCORP "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity", those anonymous IPs are in and around New Mexico; meaning the subject is regional, but discussed. Also, Google search turns up plenty on this "organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services". The college note and Albuquerque Tribune mention is "Independent of the subject", "Reliable", and non-trivial as they come from different regions (Arizona and New Mexico). Finally the IMDB, AllMusic, and Spotify, and other database listings adds verifiability on the subject(s). The article is a bit short though, needs more information. As Bruddah IZ would say, "I've seen it all, done it all, known it all." This subject is different, but it's worthy of notice.BeachParadise (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC) — BeachParadise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Rhododendrites:, my account is not a single purpose account, I have had another account listed on my user page, and have edited anonymously prior. I focus on Hawaii-related articles, but once in a while like to edit Southwestern US articles too. Please remove that tag you are mis-categorizing me. I'll assume that you mean well, but I also want to insure that you are not attempting to discredit my fair assessment on the article. BeachParadise (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BeachParadise: I see. But the other account you mention also has only 2 edits and was created in the last couple days. Although FYI the "spa" tag I added doesn't mean your opinion doesn't count. As you can probably understand, though, it's highly unusual for a very new user to know about AfD and participate in an AfD, so when someone with a new account does so, and has few other edits, it's almost always (indeed not necessarily always) because motivated by something other than the truest application of Wikipedia standards.
More on point regarding your keep rationale, NCORP does not require fame, importance, or popularity as those are all too subjective. Notability is Wikipedia's quasi-objective alternative that effectively defers that judgment. Notability in that way requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." So Heaven Sent Gaming must be the subject (or a subject) of multiple high quality sources that have no relationship to Heaven Sent Gaming. If those sources are shown to exist, I -- and I imagine others -- would be happy to change my opinion on the matter as I have absolutely no prior knowledge of this subject, nor do I have strong feelings about it. But as of now, those sources do not seem to exist. See WP:RS for an explanation of reliable sourcing and WP:N for a general overview of notability. --— Rhododendrites talk |  01:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites:I was speaking on Kolbasz statement on the WP:NCORP, which this article meets the rationale for. It also covers, the WP:N rationale, through Wikipedia:NCORP Heaven Sent Gaming has "attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product" from multiple sources. It's in the article, and more than a few of the references meet WP:RS with "peer-reviewed sources", most (if not all) primary sources are backed by secondary or tertiary sources, and the vast majority of primary sources are clearly "written or published by the subject of the biographical material", meaning they are acceptable. Mahalo braddah. Final thing, "Very Strong" is a native Hawaiian reference, which is why my "Keep" is the way it is. BeachParadise (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: thanks for those amazing "Helpful links" on your page. Heaven Sent Gaming is now cleaned of most, if not all, non-reliable citations and non-verifiable resources; according to Film/Resources, Video games/Sources, Comics/References, Albums/Sources, Novels/Resources. It is now a much more reliably sourced article. Though, the "biographical material" still has primary sources due to that being acceptable, though they usually have accompanying secondary and tertiary source. :D DunDunDunt (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC) There is also another primary source, but it is accompanied with a tertiary source per Comics/References. DunDunDunt (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what a reliable source is, as I just clicked literally every link in the reflist and did not come across even one (although to be fair there are a couple I don't have access to, which may very well prove me wrong). Very few are even articles/substantive writing beyond a tracklisting, a youtube channel, a brief mention of one of the acts its publishes, a user-submitted content site that only serves to verify something exists, and so on. If anybody can submit content (i.e. any social media site), it's not a reliable source. If it's not about the subject of the article, it's not "significant coverage." If it's written by or connected to someone involved with the subject, it's not independent of the subject. --— Rhododendrites talk |  18:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are social media sites, and 75% of the references are good resources according to the rules set forth as good references according to their respective Wikipedia project pages; you can't broad stroke notability, this clearly meets Project Comics, Project Novels, etc requirements. This article is about a notable subject with some notable published materials. The only things that remain as "written by or connected to someone involved" are a few autobiographical references. Even if your assessment is correct, which I don't.believe it is. Your assertions mean that the article simply needs more time, and this article clearly informs people in a non-biased way about the subject(s). 97.123.7.170 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, rather than further clarify WP:RS and WP:N, let's just use examples.
This is a list of all references on the page
These don't help notability as primary sources: official site (primary), official soundcloud, blog post on official site, another official site
These don't help notability as passing mentions, in addition to some being unreliable: name in a long list, us trademark office link, comicbookdb, last.fm tracklisting, a cofounder nominated for a shorty award (one of the better refs, but still just a passing mention)
These don't help notability as they don't even mention the subject of the article at all (and many are unreliable). Even if these established notability for one or more of the individual acts/titles published by the subject (which they don't), that wouldn't confer notability upon the publisher: computer science department newsletter, musicbrainz (wiki) bio for one of the founders, musicbrainz bio for the other founder, mtv tracklisting, another musicbrainz, allmusic tracklisting, radio station page that just links to a band's youtube video, a band asks fans to vote for it to play warped tour, cmt page with a couple images and a song to download, raw youtube channel statistics, band's youtube channel itself, another youtube video of a band, another of the band's music videos, more youtube channel statistics
There's also a very curious unlinked citation of an article in the Albuquerque Tribune with a title that returns no ghits other than this wikipedia article and is dated after the closure of the newspaper
So that's all of the sources except for the last five, which all come from one site, webfictionguide.com, which for some reason the public wifi I'm on thinks is pornography. I'm not familiar with webfictionguide.com, but it's not likely porn and probably worth looking at (but it appears on those five to establish notability). Ok, I'm admittedly taking up too much space in this discussion so I'll shut up now. --— Rhododendrites talk |  00:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The computer science department newsletter mentions Heaven Sent Gaming, Musicbrainz is curated and is used as an Authority Control on biographical articles. This article is also a partial biography on Mario J. Lucero and Isabel Ruiz; they are Heaven Sent Gaming. Also MTV and CMT, both subsidiaries of Viacom, are relevant in this context to give credence and referential material to their published bands on non-primary sources. aywv isn't a band, they are a gaming news publication who's content has been used by other news agencies, ; those particular references are used in regard to particular statements; statistics for views by date, being networked by Square-Enix, and about a specific translation of a video. And each of these statements have been properly refuted multiple times. Final note, the Tribune's date is corrected, it's been corrected before, but this article's size has grown exponentially since it was nominated, could've happened at any point on accident, during that week they were discussing the happenings in and around Albuquerque and the important things to keep track off when the paper's gone. DunDunDunt (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Web Fiction Guide is another self-published/user-generated source. From Web Fiction Guide | About:

Web Fiction Guide is a community-run listing of online fiction. We list anything that is original and story-oriented (we don’t list fanfic or erotica), and that is available to read for free online.

Kolbasz (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Web fiction guide is not "self-published/user-generated" it is curated by editors, you can't just list a novel after a page or two it needs to be worth listing. And, even then, more listings are non-reviewed by editors; and non-mentioned on the front page. Both of which happened for Mario's fictional novels (which are both published and part of Heaven Sent Gaming). I don't know why it's coming up as porn, it's a webnovel site. Also, on the page Kolbasz mentioned:

Our goal is to help you find stuff you want to read.

That's clearly stated on Web Fiction Guide. The reference being used in the reaction portion of the article in reference to editor reviews. I have however added better citation to those reviews, in particular a cache of it being featured on the front page.
DunDunDunt (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comic Book DB is used as a reference on comic book articles. Though I'm not sure if it needs an article on Wikipedia, and I don't care much to find out. Comic Book DB is a fine resource, a tertiary source according to the Comic Wikipedia project. CMT and MTV also have bios written about the bands and both mention Heaven Sent Gaming as being key factors, the CMT bio even clearly states that HSG is Mario and Isabel.
    Though now I'm questioning why you've singled out this DunDunDunt user, this is why I don't create an account on here, I'm well-versed on the inner workings of Wikipedia, but this kind of bullshit occurs. What's worse is that this obviously well-referenced notable article is being called into question even after the AfD nominator is given ample example of the article's room to grow to encompass a notable subject.
NinjaRobotPirate is a brilliant user, and has a no-nonsense approach to Wikipedia, and I applaud him for that. I have no interest in this subject, except as an encyclopedic one, and I implore him to look at the excellent sourcing and notability guidelines being followed to a T on this article. This is a "start" rated article that deserves more time to incorporate more of the sources available. Considering none of their novels are listed here, there's only of their 7 comics listed here, and none of their video series are listed here. This article clearly has NO interest in selling their crap, I have taken a very non-enthusiastic look at their work, and they are clearly discussed in multiple places and listed on the appropriate databases. 97.123.7.170 (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One Final Comment: I'd like to state that new media subjects like this are difficult to reference. Ie; Toby Turner, The Yogscast, Lasse Gjertsen, all of which are incredibly notable examples of Internet Culture articles that make HEAVY use of primary references, which again is fine for autobiographical content as long as it's verifiable and not making a ridiculous claim. This article needs time, the main subject and it's published titles have more than enough independently published sources to warrant a growing article. I will no longer be posting in this AfD, I'm confident that this article meets the requirements to remain on Wikipedia. I'm also confidant that I've logically refuted the remove votes. DunDunDunt (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer, User:Musamies, whom voted a delete on my other article Comic Book DB just edited the Wikidata entry on Heaven Sent Gaming and removed the link to this article. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the AFD discussion. It should remain in Wikidata until the AFD is concluded, but it's existance in Wikidata is not a factor in determining the outcome of the AFD. -- ferret (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed it was a factor, it has been on Wikidata longer than this article was created. This topics existence on Wikidata is independent of this article. It meets the criteria of a Wikidata entry regardless; MusicBrainz, IMDB, and various other reasons. I was simply stating the fact that the article was removed from its Wikidata entry, by a user that had commented on the Comic Book DB AfD. Which is an AfD about another article created by me; which hasn't gotten the attention this AfD has. DunDunDunt (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability clearly established, multiple sources will allow for article growth, it's written in non-biased manner, so i don't care whos writing it. I'm from Amsterdam, but, Nuevo México es mi vida, Johnny Tapia, gracias por los saludos. 5.79.72.193 (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons why Snafu Comics was kept. There's enough info on them, and each of their published works. The CMT and MTV articles even mention them, and their publishing history, on the Biography pages, although I think Viacom's artist bios are down as of right now. 78.47.151.98 (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC) — 78.47.151.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note this article is WAAAAY better sourced than Snafu's, why is this article up for deletion? 144.76.174.53 (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Having sources in the reference section isn't quite the same as being "better sourced". Almost every single one of the sources in this article are unreliable, trivial, or primary. -- ferret (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changed to a STRONG KEEP below as LuigiToeness, ^ btw, this article is much better than most new media articles on here, speaking of which, shouldn't there be a better way to explain the notability of a new media subject? 144.76.174.53 (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep. -- ferret (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That argument only applies if you're referring to another Wikipedia article. No one's arguing whether this subject should have multiple articles. The support keeps, have all stated that this subject only requires a single article as is. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"this article is much better than most new media articles on here" -- that is the reference to another Wikipedia article. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a vague statement about multiple articles within this translation of Wikipedia. You didn't address the issues with New Media notability. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note their Klout score has been in the high 40s before, and they continuously swing upward after updating. [1] which, in case you're wondering, isn't easy. And you're saying MTV, CMT, a newspaper, college dept newsletter, several tertiary comic links, independent reviews in Web Fiction Guide, The Shorty Awards, and others; are "unreliable, trivial, or primary"? You're kidding me. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's exactly what we're saying. Because none of them talk specifically about "Heaven Sent Gaming" in significant detail while also being reliable (i.e. does not allow any user contributions, has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not self-published). --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about their Klout Score though, eh? Convenient. Most the "deletes" on here are arbitrary arguments that side with vague interpretations on what these references say or don't say. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • HUGE Comment "does not allow any user contributions" and "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "not self-published" are not policy based. But, let's go down the list. By number:
  1. "Media - General - New Mexico Net" is a tertiary source that as a curated list of sites does not allow direct "user contributions", it "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", is not "not self-published".
  2. "Heaven Sent Gaming - Official Web-site - About Page" is a primary source cached page, only used to source a date.
  3. U.S. Trademark shows the time at which interest in using it commercially was thought of, and is a tertiary source, that "does not allow any user contributions" and "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "not self-published".
  4. The Albuquerque Tribune is a secondary source "not self published", the paper had "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and did "not allow any user contributions".
  5. "Mario J. Lucero - MusicBrainz" is from a curated respected, tertiary source, wiki community, that has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  6. "Isabel Ruiz - MusicBrainz" is from a curated respected, tertiary source, wiki community, that has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  7. Heaven Sent Gaming at the Grand Comics Database is a curated tertiary source per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  8. Heaven Sent Gaming at the Comic Book DB is a curated tertiary source per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  9. Heaven Sent Gaming publishing catalog at MusicBrainz is from a curated respected, tertiary source, wiki community, that has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  10. "Mario J. Lucero - New Music And Songs - CMT" is a secondary source "not self published", has "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Although the bio portion is currently missing from most Viacom artists, it contains a bit of a history of Heaven Sent Gaming in a non-trivial manner.
  11. "Life Never Lost - New Music And Songs - MTV" is a secondary source "not self published", has "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Although the bio portion is currently missing from most Viacom artists, it contains a bit of a history of Heaven Sent Gaming in a non-trivial manner.
  12. Collins College newsletter, secondary source that is "not self-published".
  13. "HSGpodcasts" primary source used to source a bit of a the bio of living persons.
  14. "Antonia "Toni" Lucero - Heaven Sent Gaming" used to source a bit of a the bio of living persons.
  15. 1140 S Priest Dr - Google Maps, location of Collins College, not sure if it's relevant, but it's interesting. Might be removed.
  16. Mario's vlog. primary source used to source a bit of a the bio of living persons. (might I add it IS an IMDB listed video series.)
  17. "aywv - about page - YouTube" used to source #1 position on charts.
  18. "Aywv Channel Graphs" secondary source shows Square Enix connection
  19. BladeChick, three sources, single primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  20. Karis, three sources, single primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  21. Koki'o, three sources, single primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  22. Mouton, three sources, single primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  23. Reverie, three sources, single primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  24. Thad’s World Destruction, three sources, primary and two tertiary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/References
  25. "Release "All We Are" by Life Never Lost - MusicBrainz" is from a curated respected, tertiary source, wiki community, that has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
  26. "All We Are – Life Never Lost – Listen and discover music at Last.fm" primary/secondary source from well known music social website.
  27. "Rgh! (Wookie Sound With Inflection of Hope) - Life Never Lost - Songs, Reviews, Credits, Awards - AllMusic" secondary source on AllMusic for second album release information.
  28. "Life Never Lost - Click the band you want to see on 104.1 the Edge" secondary source for artist's nomination
  29. "Life Never Lost". Archived from the original" primary source cached page, in order to show nomination information.
  30. Iron, two sources, single primary and two tertiary.
  31. Many, two sources, single primary and two tertiary.
  32. "aywv - Topic - YouTube" tertiary source to show aywv topic on YouTube
  33. "Final Fantasy XIII (TGS 2009 Japanese Trailer 03)" primary source in order to show the video in question.
  34. "Aywv Recent Videos - YouTube Statistics" secondary source to show stats relevant to the claim.
  35. "Mario J. Lucero - The Shorty Awards" secondary source to show relevant claim.
  36. "Web Fiction Guide - free online novels, story collections, reviews" used as secondary source used to show reviews of two stories in particular. "not self published", the site has editors that must approve a novel before it's listed and not all listed novels get reviewed (yet alone by an editor) "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Also a cached page to show the "Selected Reviews".

29=tertiary, 15=primary (9 of which are okay by relevant WikiProject reference information), and 11=secondary. This article is fine. This will be my final post in here, I'm serious. I thought this AfD was supposed to be closed. DunDunDunt (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the facts comrade, this is actually mostly non-arbitrary. My keep remains. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either you misunderstand or you're intentionally misrepresenting both Wikipedia policy and the sources, but between that and the SPA turnout, my WP:AGF meter is running low. Many articles about companies and websites are deleted every single day not because they aren't good or important, but because there are specific standards for article subjects on Wikipedia. Without those, it turns into a place for promotion or the yellow pages. With as dedicated a force as has been shown here, I'm sure it won't be long before it does get a sufficient amount of coverage and you can just recreate the article. I assure you I (and I can probably speak for others involved) have no problem with Heaven Sent Gaming as an entity -- only with the practice of trying to overload an article with poor sources to create the superficial impression of notability (the technical Wikipedia term, not the synonym for "importance"). --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think he's coming back mate, I don't think he was arguing whether they were good or not. His arguments have been mostly encyclopedic, though some of his arguments were less than instrumental in swaying my Keep. A few of your links to specific Wikipedia policies actually convinced me thoroughly that this is an acceptable article that's only going to become better. There's still plenty to cover, they have a Bible translation from what I can see, and even a few other novels and comics. I believe this subject is notable according to Wikipedia policies, and as an individual subject should have an article. I actually don't give two fucks about Heaven Sent Gaming, I'm a staunch Richard Dawkins fan, and I can only imagine they'd bug the shit out of me personally. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the primary proponents and SPAs for this article keep bringing up the fact that they are athiest or non-Christian, when no one else is even discussing that? It has no bearing here, your motivation for liking or disliking a topic isn't a factor. These sources are not reliable. Rhododendrites has already illustrated that, with links to the applicable policy. -- ferret (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, I like Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) above am starting to have a hard time assuming good faith - the very first source claimed to be reliable and not user-generated is very obviously user-generated. But here's a huge reply with an actual breakdown of the references in the article:
    1. New Mexico Net: User-generated/listing page.
    2. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    3. USPTO: Irrelevant. Says absolutely nothing about notability.
    4. Albuquerque Tribune: actually a reliable source and valid for establishing notability! Unfortunately, only a trivial mention.
    5. MusicBrainz: User-generated/listing page.
    6. MusicBrainz: User-generated/listing page.
    7. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    8. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    9. MusicBrainz: User-generated/listing page.
    10. CMT Artists: Self-published. Create an account and they put up a page for you.
    11. MTV Artists: Self-published. Create an account and they put up a page for you.
    12. Collins College Computer Science Department Newsletter: A department newsletter of a 1200 student college does not establish notability. It'll report on anything that's of interest to the people at the college, not to the world at large.
    13. HSGpodcasts: Primary, self-published.
    14. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    15. Google Maps: Irrelevant.
    16. Mario's vlog: Primary, self-published.
    17. Youtube about page: Primary, self-published.
    18. Youtube about page: Primary, self-published.
    19. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    20. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    21. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    22. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    23. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    24. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    25. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    26. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    27. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    28. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    29. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    30. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    31. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    32. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    33. Grand Comic Books Database: User-generated/listing page.
    34. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    35. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    36. Comic Book DB: User-generated/listing page.
    37. MusicBrainz: User-generated/listing page.
    38. last.fm: User-generated/listing page.
    39. AllMusic: listing page.
    40. Embedded Youtube video
    41. Life Never Lost: Primary, self-published.
    42. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    43. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    44. Heaven Sent Gaming: Primary, self-published.
    45. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    46. Youtube
    47. Youtube
    48. Youtube
    49. Shorty Awards: "These categories are free for everyone to enter, simply by tweeting a nomination. Choose one of the Official Categories below or make your own Community Category."
    50. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    51. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    52. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    53. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
    54. Web Fiction Guide: User-generated.
If it's incomplete or contains errors it's because I started losing the will to live after the first few dozen or so.
And again: the issue isn't a lack of proof of existence but a lack of proof of notability. Listing pages like e.g. MusicBrainz are like phone books. You can use a phone book to show that there probably is a John Doe at the corner of Example Street and Tortured Analogy Avenue with the number 555-123456, but you can't use it to show that he's famous. And for user-generated content, you have no idea if the information is even accurate. Kolbasz (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before by DunDunDunt- Grand Comic Books Database and ComicBook DB are acceptable under Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References - or are you ignoring that? - MusicBrainz is curated. - New Mexico Net is curated by the admin of that site obviously. - Web Fiction Guide is not "User-Generated" in this context, it's clearly reviewed by an editor of the site, and it was featured on the front page.

Stating - "YouTube", trivial mention "for multiple statements", and "It'll report on anything that's of interest to the people at the college" - is simply an arbitrary and biased interpretation of the content therein. Even if DunDunDunt is gone, I'm gonna keep up this fight, these topics in this subject are clearly notable. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notable, here's the official policy on general notability here on Wikipedia, and why this subject passes the test:

  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
Both of the main secondary sources, Tribune and Collins, provide more than enough information to provide enough information for two-three paragraphs.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
As stated before, there are secondary sources. And, they are clearly reliable due to them not contradicting primary sources or tertiary sources.
  • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
many secondary and tertiary sources to backed by primary sources. There are multiple reliable secondary single sources, as discussed before. And all of the sources are available online which is a plus.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
Several of the secondary and tertiary sources are clearly not produced by the subject or someone affiliated with it. Even a few of the tertiary sources that might be added by them, are curated, like MusicBrainz.
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
This article obeys all of the rules in WP:NOT, it is not a problem according to WP:DISCRIMINATE, and this topic deserves a standalone article since it houses multiple notable subjects. It "treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary", and all that good stuff.

Done-and-done. I realize several corporation's articles get deleted - articles that get deleted tend to not follow the above rules, which this article obeys and then some. since this is an unusual subject since it's also various arts and entertainment, it needs to be handled under the general rule of thumb. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of a reliable source is, simply, incorrect. Not contradicting primary or tertiary sources is not the "bar" to be met. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? These Reliable Sources according to Wikipedia you mean?
  • News organizations such as the Tribune.
- The Tribune article has been unduly called "trivial", which as defined by WP:TRIVIALMENTION, "a topic in "one sentence" are insufficient to establish that topic's notability". This reference has a sentence and devoted paragraph that gives more independent information about Heaven Sent Gaming's connection to United Feature Syndicate.
  • Scholarly and News organization, "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."
- This reference possible falls into this comment, Collins College is accredited meaning, "The U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) (a non-governmental organization) both recognize reputable accrediting bodies for institutions of higher education. They also provide guidelines as well as resources and relevant data regarding these accreditors. Neither the U.S. Department of Education nor the CHEA accredit individual institutions." So this reference is reliable and third party, for what it's used for as a reference.
  • Self-published "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff".
- Tertiary sources such as Grand Comics Database, Music Brainz, and Web Fiction Guide falls under this for sure.
Anything else? 144.76.174.53 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've been saying, this passes the General Notability Guideline. DunDunDunt (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) -- ferret (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: As stated by 144.76.174.53, this subject and it's topics meet GNG. And, it isn't policy to ignore WP:SPAs, "Focus on the subject matter, not the person." Most of the SPAs in this conversation shouldn't have been tagged this way according to the "Whom not to tag" section, you shouldn't tag any of these users for "Editing only within a single broad topic", "Lack of a user page", or "Editing time line". I'm extremely surprised @Smile Lee: hasn't returned, since tagging his posts as "appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed" under "WP:COI", could be considered WP:Libel. Especially considering Smile Lee hasn't made any efforts to have a Wikipedia article about himself. He's been on here for ages, and has created the majority of articles surrounding the local musician Al Hurricane. He has not displayed COI issues involving this article, and his points were relevant to this discussion. I'm fine with my Comic Book DB article being deleted, I was not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines I'll admit that, but I stand by this article. I'm way more experiences in Wikipedia rules, which this subject meets the criteria for being accepted. DunDunDunt (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not libel for them to point out the obvious, there's a fair assumption of WP:COI, it's common practice in the AfD process. Honestly I am personally exacerbated that this discussion has been stretched for so many paragraphs. My "Keep" vote is still there, and is now more strongly in the "Keep" camp. After the extra evidence that's been supplied, the conclusion I have arrived to is, with 100% confidence, this subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. I didn't even know that there were available copies of the article at Collins and in the Tribune online. Smile Lee (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I was ignoring them, I said I don't agree with their stance. And it's perfectly acceptable to point out SPAs, it often helps explains the influx of flawed, non-policy based arguments to the closing Admin (who would probably think the same thing anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this AfD has become an unruly mess. Categorizing things isn't bad, I do understand though that this can seem insulting to new users. Getting articles stuck in AfD can be pain when you're new. I would like to state that, again, for the record, I am not interested in maintaining this article, nor do I care whether Heaven Sent Gaming has an article or not. I'm a longtime Wikipedian, that's knowledgeable in most aspects of this site. And I am more interested in cataloging Al Hurricane, which is a subject who's article I created, as well as half of his discography as of now. Smile Lee (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been doing a little bit of research around Wikipedia. As of now there have been plenty of AfD discussions just like this one. Articles of Toby Turner, Shay Carl, Snafu Comics (stated prior), MS Paint Adventures, and other "web culture" related articles. All of which have been subjected to MULTIPLE AfD nominations. This can't be right. Seriously, no notability guides for new media? This would save A LOAD of headaches from occurring. I'm going to start drafting a proposal, but I stick by the previous "Keep", this particular article already meets the criteria for general notability. BeachParadise (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like my help in composing that, I'd be interested, discussions about web media are often filled with misunderstandings in how this field operates. Contact me if you would like a bit of professional insight. Smile Lee (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can come to some sort of widespread consensus on such a thing, that's fine. But this particular AFD is not the place to try to create/enforce such a thing, or moan about its non-existence. That's comparable to trying to create new laws in the middle if a particular court case. It's not the pace to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, I am not "moaning" about this anything's non-existence. I simply want to offer some input on his drafts. If you are referring to BeachParadise, they stated "I stick by the previous 'Keep', this particular article already meets the criteria for general notability." Nobody was trying to "create/enforce" a new guideline in this AfD, I asked them to contact me. You are misrepresenting that user's statements, and mine. Smile Lee (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INDENT. I was referring to "Beach" above you. And I was referring to their comment complaining about no guidelines for new media. That part alone, no misrepresentation here. Calm down, sheesh. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying that neither Paradise or I claimed that new rules were required for this article to be kept. It meets WP:GNG. Smile Lee (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in this discussion, terms statements like "my WP:AGF meter is running low" have been used by experienced users against newbies. It's not your fault, and you're not to blame. I didn't mean to sound snappy, and I apologize if I came across that way. I'm just acting a bit sassy, it is not right for experienced editors to be berating new/potential editors. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Smile Lee (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found another reference [2]. Implemented it into the article. DunDunDunt (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, that's how you provide more information on a subject's notability. You can't just show the old sources, they already made up their opinion on those sources, and whether or not you agree with their assessment, you cannot convince them to change their vote through re-evaluation. By adding another source like this, you add the potential for a vote to be swayed. It's part of how AfD works, consensus. Smile Lee (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the local entertainment section of the Rio Rancho Observer is a local source and adds no weight to the topic's overall notability.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a local source" DOES add weight to a topic's notability. Whether a subject is primarily discussed in particular area, field, or region has nothing to do with notability. From my experience, "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" those simply enhance it. I do know of several secondary sources not listed on this article, and some are not "local". But, again, I'm not interested in myself as an encyclopedic topic. Smile Lee (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the media audience guideline.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did, see below. DunDunDunt (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was in reply to Smile Lee.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realize, but this is a consensus debate, and I addressed the concern below. Though I agree with him, "at least regional" is usually good enough, I do see your argument though, it could be considered WP:BARE. These current reliable secondary sources already allow for article growth. Though I have found a few sources that I am trying to find online caches of. Once I do they will be added to the article. They from multiple parts of the country, most are indepth, and from multiple fields. I'm heading to bed though, g'night. I hope I'm getting better at debating this junk. DunDunDunt (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DunDunDunt: I know that you've put a lot of work into improving the article and contributing to this debate and all credit to you for that. Sometimes though, it is a good idea to drop the stick and move on to another worthwhile cause. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 06:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After meticulously reading the list of policies relevant to this discussion, in summary, the subject and topics covered in this article meets the appropriate guidelines.

  1. WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV: "No original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
  2. WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
  3. WP:CMC/REF: The Grand Comics Database and Comic Book DB are used and "any specific detail as its details are drawn from the actual comics so it is usually better to use the primary source".
  4. WP:CORPDEPTH and Non Trivial: The three main current secondary sources. Tribune, Observer, and Collins. They are not "sources that simply report meeting times", they are not "business directories", they are not "lists of similar organizations", they are not "schedule"s, they are not "routine communiqués", they are not "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business", they are not "simple statements that a product line", they are not "routine notices of facility openings or closings", they are not "routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches", they are not "quotations from an organization's personnel", and they are not a "passing mention".
  5. WP:AUD: Two of the "reliable" secondary sources are regional, and the third is from another region entirely. "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."
  6. WP:PRODUCT: This company is notable, and there should not be a dozen stubs related to it's products or services. This article should suffice. "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy."
  7. Wikipedia:WHYN: This article isn't anywhere near including all sources available, it doesn't even include a complete list of the published works this subject is responsible for. Which can all be found in reliable/accepted secondary and tertiary sources, as well as primary sources. Notability is partially used to make sure article growth is probable, which it is.

User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:Smile Lee, thank you for being helpful during this AfD, and for not hand-holding while still directing me towards the appropriate information. DunDunDunt (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ishdarian: Tribune and Observer are reliable sources, and they are both secondary sources. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two out of 55. They're reliable, but they're trivial mentions that do nothing to establish notability. Ishdarian 06:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ishdarian:They are not trivial mentions, read my "WP:CORPDEPTH" comment above about these two sources. The comic database listings are normal per WP:CMC/REF. And, the web fiction guide is, again, used as a means to quote editorial review, not to quote it's listing on the site in particular. Though I do believe this article has become WP:OVERREF. Which can be fixed, and does not require article deletion. DunDunDunt (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're trivial. Ishdarian 07:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating your assessment in the face of evidence does not make it correct. My application of the guidelines has been thorough, going to clean the amount of references. Probably categorize them between Works references, and Article references.DunDunDunt (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that's all you did too though... Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Cartar: another secondary source added, 70% of the available reliable secondary sources aren't incorporated into the article. passes GNG. 144.76.174.53 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep meets all requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:CMC/REF, now I support the Keep side more, after reading other similar AfD discussions, this will more than likely be "No Consensus". This article is new, and requires much more time to incorporate all of the information surrounding the topics. LuigiToeness (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All reference bloat has been removed. @DunDunDunt:, don't bloat references like that. This topic has enough notable sources on its own, but adding too many references signals to experienced editors that there aren't any REAL references. References should only be limited to independent sources. The other important information has been moved to notes, the works references need to be trimmed and organized too, but that's for another day. LuigiToeness (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify which refs are the ones that make it meet the GNG? Sergecross73 msg me 04:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Absolutely and indubitably, good fellow. The article in the Tribune is more than a passing mention, does not simply state what this organization does, it gives secondary sourcing about the United Feature Syndicate fact. The Collins article displays, at least, original academic achievement or interest and adds secondary sourcing for "Our Own Little Coup". The Globe interview shows some external interest in the topic beyond its preliminary field and demonstrates connection to one former Our Own Little Coup member, Mr. Cass, whom appears to have connection to the late CJ Henderson. The Observer makes reference to Mr. Lucero and Ms. Ruiz being caregivers of the Lucero grandparents. I have read in this AfD that CMT and MTV will allow user-submitted bios, which is true, but after a week they are removed after fact checkers review it, Viacom is very careful about reviewing content on their MTV and CMT artist sites; the MTV Life Never Lost article has no bio anymore but the CMT Mario J. Lucero career bio, which adds secondary referencing to Heaven Sent Gaming helping local artists, is still up so they have found it to be worth keeping. All four of the prior add to it meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. The Web Fiction Guide links are clearly from editors on the site, and are not your run-of-the-mill listings from the site, they provide secondary reactions to two of their published works; which on their own wouldn't be worth mentioning, but in this context they provide editorial critical commentary. I'm about to head onto an airplane in a bit, so I won't be on again for a couple days, I look forward to building this article more upon my return. My current understanding is that there are quite a few more physical references to be able go through, that I will be willing to pull up. Can't check for typos so accept my sloppy writing, my plane's about to board, I'm out. LuigiToeness (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell exactly what sources you're talking about, since you didn't link to any in particular, and the article is swamped with unreliable, terrible sources, but looking through the article some:
  • Articles like this or this from "Web Fiction Guide" are neither "significant coverage" or "covering the source at all". They do not go towards notability.
  • The Boston Globe article is a very short interview, that barely even mentions HSG at all.
  • the CMT bio is about a person, not Heaven Sent Gaming, and its a short database entry at that.
If this is the sort of sourcing you're claiming is making the article notable, then you are terribly wrong. Everyone I look up is some sort of combination of unreliable, passing mention, or not about the article subject at all. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • forgot to add that Mario J. Lucero is one of the topics relevant to the subject of this article. He and Isabel Ruiz are main biographical figures in the history of the subject Heaven Sent Gaming. BeachParadise (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are still all sorts of garbage sources littered throughout the article. You have a long ways to go before you can deem it "corrected". And your comment about the Mario source - this is why we keep saying that you guys don't understand Wikipedia's concept of notability and significant coverage. There's a difference between using a source to cite information, and using it to prove notability. While the source may be okay to cite info about Mario, it doesn't count as a reliable source that works towards proving notability, because it doesn't discuss the topic itself, Heaven Sent Gaming, in detail. The source only discusses a person related to the topic, not the topic itself. It can't be used to prove notability here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reference clearly states that Mario is half of Heaven Sent Gaming. Regardless, notability has nothing to do with the content of the article, nor the various topics covered by the subject. There just needs to be enough verifiable RS to create a non-biased encyclopedic article. I'm going to leave this to the closing admin. It doesn't matter if you think that us "guys" can understand the GNG. Which a few keeps have demonstrated a knowledge of, like Smile Lee whom has been on Wikipedia for quite a while. BeachParadise (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you just described is a textbook example of a trivial, passing mention. Yes, it "clearly states that Mario is part of HSG. And that's it. Like I've said, if this is the sort of "coverage" that this article is hinging on, there's no way its going to meet the WP:GNG. I'd also like to point out that the "Keeps" are not winning anyone over here. Virtually every "Keep" here so far either started editing under their current name/IP in the last few weeks (or days). And the one who isn't, Smile Lee, is the co-owner of the subject of this AFD. Minus Smile, not a single experienced editor has gone for "Keep". Not a coincidence. Sergecross73 msg me 00:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments on socks below. It is so obvious, I didn't bother researching further and just joined in the fun. I'm confident that any competent admin will see this for a sock/meat fest. Text book case: passing mentions only on a trivial topic and lots of new editors with the same battle cry, and already trying to talk up "no consensus to get a default keep. *yawn*. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and close this already. Total failure of WP:GNG made even more obvious by the frenetic behavior in this AfD. There are a few trivial mentions in reliable sources, but those are just that: trivial. Everything else is in unreliable sources. Nobody in favor of keeping has articulated a cogent reason for keeping, nor provided any evidence of notability. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep most delete votes are WP:BIG, WP:MUST, WP:TRIVCOV and WP:ITSLOCAL. In fact the very nomination was WP:GOOGLEHITS. This is rediculous. And the most compelling argument is SPA; have you people ever thought that the people interested in this topic value their privacy and don't like to sign up for accounts. I have a very prominent account on here, but user identity has no weight in these discussions. Someone close this as "no consensus". This argument clearly has no end, as of yet, maybe in several months or in in a year we can revisit it in AfD, until then stop tying up the AfD discussions.174.50.79.228 (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)— 174.50.79.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  1. The nomination is sound - they found the topic to be non-notable, and nothing on a Google search was able to convince them otherwise. It doesn't hinge on "GOOGLEHITS", its just shows that he made an effort to follow through on WP:BEFORE - a good thing.
  2. The main argument by deletes are that there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Very sound, valid, policy-based arguments. The article is covered in unreliable/database entry type sourcing, and many of the "Keeps" have no understanding on what constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition.
  3. Having a "prominent account" and not using it to !vote "keep" in a deletion discussion makes zero sense on this website. Saying such a thing only further makes you look like yet another SPA who has no grasp Wikipedia or its standards of notability. No one who is familiar with the website would opt to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who said this, or who they're talking to, but neither of us suggested that "prominence" wins these debates. That wasn't the point either of was making... Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said that last, "Prominence doesn't win these debates", comment and forgot to sign. I was using my phone, not an easy device to communicate in AfD discussions. BeachParadise (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An amazing array of "sources" that fail WP:RS in an obvious way, giving us a clear indication of why we have WP:GNG instead of just counting Google hits. I was asked to look at the socking and meat puppetry here out of fear that the closing admin might miss it, but the veil is so fine as to resemble The Emperor's New Clothes. I have no concerns that the closer will see through it without effort and instead, I will participate as a fellow editor. Subject matter fails our criteria of notability in a most spectacular and breathtaking fashion. Their work may very well be good, but "good" doesn't make it notable via the criteria at Wikipedia. It isn't personal, it is just too soon, and no amount of sockpuppetry and friend stacking can change that fact. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note No one on the Keep side of the argument has made an argument that "Their work may very well be good", that has been assumed based on early "excitement" in the AfD by a few newbie editors. There is no "An amazing array of "sources"" either, there are only 12 references (7 of which are individual sources). Another user, User:LuigiToeness, promised to correct the errors in the "works references" as well. I will WP:BEBOLD and do it myself later today. The 7 current main references are enough for notability and I agree with the anonymous "prominent" user, WP:BIG, WP:MUST, WP:TRIVCOV and WP:ITSLOCAL have been the only Deletes I have seen thus far, and none of those arguments hold any water. BeachParadise (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read what you've said, and stated my opinion on your assertion, and I disagree with your assessment. This article passes GNG and none of the main seven refs fail RS. I understand what I linked to, I can read English. BeachParadise (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Did not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources with which to establish notability. No matches in Google Books, Google Scholar, or Highbeam; or any new sources from Google Web. Rio Rancho Observer seems like arguably significant RS coverage, but is only one source. The subject's mention in The Boston Globe was incidental, and the Albequerque Tribune coverage was a single paragraph. Agyle (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heaven_Sent_Gaming&oldid=1137904735"