Arin Hanson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I have found at least two reliable sources that give him significant coverage in the form of an interview. [1] and [2] I have tried convincing the closing administrator on his talk page but failed. [3] Note that in the AFD no one mentioned any sources, just said other things. Dream Focus 02:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse extremely non-RS-looking blog interview isn't enough to overturn AFD consensus, especially not one that ran 2 weeks and was overrun with socks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per my rationale in my talk page, Dream Focus should know better. Sock/meat infected AFD in which none of the them gave any policy based argument. Secret ^account 03:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

  Whether someone socked or you just had fans of the guy coming over, can't tell. And there was a policy based argument in the form of him passing WP:ENT do his notable voice acting roles. The article had other proof of notability within it. [4] He also is mentioned in various reliable sources such as Screw Attack [5] and Joystiq.com [6]. He gets mentioned for his work in a print magazine GameAxis Unwired [7]. The article doesn't stop being notable because no one thought to point out the reliable sources in it giving him significant coverage. This article should be restored. Dream Focus 05:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Well Tokyogirl79 rationale explained the lack of reliable sources perfectly well including the ones that you mentioned. WP:ENT like WP:ATHLETE, etc.. is only for borderline cases, but it doesn't overrule WP:GNG Secret ^account 16:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

    • WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." And that box includes one for people, which has the section for entertainers on that page. WP:ENT Dream Focus 17:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

    If gamer blogs are your idea of a reliable source, especially on something as sensitive as a BLP, you need to seriously rethink your participation on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

    • Which references are you referring to? Screw Attack is a reliable source, and has a show called MAGFest XI which featured him. [8] Do you not consider that significant coverage in a reliable source? What about the rest of them? Dream Focus 18:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

      • I think I've made my position very clear, but if you absolutely insist: ScrewAttack (and similar blogs) would be a questionable source even for simple, non-controversial information like what colour a particular video game's cover art is. For biographical information about a living person who could potentially sue for libel, it's totally unacceptable as a source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse p b p 15:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review; altho a BLP, I see no harmful content that would prevent this. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - obviously a significant portion of the last half of the discussion was an ongoing conversation between me and another editor. We civilly (I think) agreed to disagree, but I stand by my opinion of the sources at that point and DRV isn't AFD, round 2 anyway. I think what is being asked here is whether, a short time after an AFD, the article can be recreated if new sources have come to light. I'm not sure I'd be happy to concur with recreation this soon after an AFD on the basis of the sources provided above. The screw attack source is an interview with the subject, something I am regularly told should be considered a primary source. I'm not really sure about the Joystiq one that says the subject was the source. I suppose they might mean the video, but I can't see that the text would be considered "significant coverage" without it. But I did participate in the original AFD and I shouldn't get a chance to prosecute the case all over again and I won't. I think the close accurately reflects the consensus and on the question of recreation, I'd probably like to see some more substantive (new) sourcing first. Stalwart 111 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

  If the AFD didn't bring up the specific reliable sources in the discussion, then it wasn't really considered. It shouldn't be about the AFD itself, but about here and now, look at the sources, and consider whether that is enough to prove notability. If it meets the notability requirements then it should be recreated. And interviews count for notability, you just can't trust the content from a primary source alone with some things, while its find to trust them for others. Someone claims in an interview they did something, they could be lying. But it still counts as significant coverage in a reliable source. How do you feel about the interview in Destructoid [9]? Dream Focus 04:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Well, the other editor and I discussed them in detail, in the context of inclusion criteria. The fact that neither of us posted specific links to specific sources doesn't mean they weren't discussed, nor does it make the discussion any less valid, in my opinion. But I appreciate where you're coming from and I have tried to address some of the specific sources here, given your suggestion that there might be some that weren't taken into account. For the record, those sources were in the list when this was being considered at AFD and most of them are purple links for me (as in, I did look at them before commenting at AFD or while my conversation with the other editor was ongoing). My problem with the Destructoid one is that I'm just not sure it's reliable. Sorry, but I have to question the editorial review process of a site that prints (word-for-word) suggestions from an interviewee that someone should lick his genitals. He calls another group of developers a "buncha C**TS". The profanity doesn't bother me in the slightest, but you have to question the editorial integrity of a interviewer whose technique is limited to one line prompters that illicit those responses and not much more in the way of substantive content. The intro is okay. Like I said, I'm uncomfortable allowing recreation if those are what is on offer in terms of new sources. Even less so given they were in the article previously and are not actually new. Stalwart 111 06:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• When asked about a show he was on, he said "The Tester can lick my nuts." If if its a reliable source, then you can't dismiss it simply because they published the answer the guy gave to a legitimate question. The interviewer isn't saying such things. Dream Focus 06:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Absolutely, I agree. But it also doesn't tell us much about the subject either. It's not exactly "significant coverage" if all we come away with at the end is that he thinks certain people should do certain things to his nuts. Yeah? I'm not dismissing it either, I just don't think it's particularly "significant coverage" (it's basically his opinion of certain things with a bit about some things he's been working on) and I have to question how reliable it is (1, as a partially primary source and 2, because of the editorial concerns I have). After all that, it's still probably one of the better sources we have so I don't hold out much hope. Stalwart 111 07:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Two blog interviews still aren't much. He still fails WP:N, and quite frankly possibly CSD A7. Revolution1221 ( talk) 21:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

  Those aren't blogs interviewing him. The Destructoid article for example had an Associate Editor, a paid staff member, interview him. Dream Focus 22:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) Vacate  (1) Closer successfully prodded this article for deletion on 2009-12-01T14:10:32.  Therefore, closer is WP:INVOLVED.  (2) In this 2009 prodding, closer did not notify the article creator [10].  This shows disregard for the deletion process.  (3) In the recent closing, closer stipulates to "ignoring all these non-policy based WP:SPA accounts".  But AfD is not a vote count, and knowing that participants were ignored means that the close was not properly conducted.  IMO, those "non-policy based" !votes as a group show good understanding of policy.  For example, the third paragraph of WP:N shows that if a topic passes WP:ENT, the topic is wp:notable, whether or not it passes WP:GNG.  77.117.246.211 asks, "Isn't WP:ENT relevant for this article?" and never gets an answer.  The word "improve" was mentioned by many editors recommending "keep", and WP:IMPROVE is a policy.  (4) Closer salted the article without notice in the closing and against consensus (the one comment is, "But it would be silly to delete such an article and decree that it should never be created again ( WP:SALT)." [emphasis in the original]), see log.  (5) Closer does not rule regarding the suggestion to merge to (a new article?) Metal Gear Awesome.  (6) The final point I want to make in recommending a vacate is that the closer does not issue a ruling as to whether the deletion was based on notability or based on a content policy.  The nominator mentions BLP, and one of the deletes mentions the guideline WP:RS.  Tokyogirl seems to be looking for sources to satisfy WP:GNG, but in doing so talks about WP:RS.  99 edits were added to the article after the nominator expressed concern as to whether or not BLP was satisfied, and the issue never came up again.  And DGG has already advised above that the content is not so BLP "harmful" that we can't review it.  And again, WP:IMPROVE is a policy.  This is a critical point, because with so much attention being given to notability, the discussion doesn't seem to develop a consensus about deletion for content.

Additional notes:

• I see nothing to refute the claim that WP:ENT#2 is satisfied by two different criteria, and this establishes wp:notability even if WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE are not satisfied.
• The article was prodded for deletion seven minutes after creation, and nominated for deletion 29 minutes thereafter.
• 99 edits were added to the article between the time it was nominated and the time it was deleted. 
• 10 articles currently reference "Egoraptor". 

Unscintillating ( talk) 21:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• • With the WP:INVOLVED it doesn't make any sense, look at the article history, I prodded the article back in 2009, probably while in New Pages Patrol and was deleted soon after, so it never came up in the history that I originally prodded the page, how is that WP:INVOLVED? I don't know the subject area at all, and I just closed a debate by looking at the policy based commentating. Secret ^account 05:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Crunchyroll is a reliable source. They interviewed him also. [11] Dream Focus 22:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• The article changed greatly from the time the first people commented in it. Also, why dismiss all the Keeps? Can you prove these are all socks, and not just fans? The article had 13318 from the time it was nominated for deletion to the time it was deleted. Note that one of the Keep votes has a long edit history [12]. They should not have been discounted. Dream Focus 22:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Addressing why the "keeps" were discredited: I know Andrew said "socks", but I'm pretty sure we all knew it was meatpuppetry, hence {{ not a ballot}} being added. Those who don't have a firm grasp on Wikipedia policy or who submit shaky arguments don't really sway the discussion. If we go through them one by one...

• User:Jeran: His first edit in five years on a limited editing history, !voted keep but even admitted himself: "to really bring him to notable levels, more of his work that has gone outside of the internet should be considered, and added. I dont know how much there is, and if not enough can be found, then i would push for deletion". We can safely ignore this. Ignored: 1, Good: 0
• User:CardsOfTheHeart: Eh. Single purpose account, but made a decent argument and volunteered to re-do the article. The re-done version is the one that everybody on DRV is seeing when they look at the latest revision (well, before DGG's), and the current consensus isn't to overturn the AFD.
• User:66.229.185.4: Not policy based. And this was the IP's only edit, unless you count the one from 7 years ago. Another one of the "Keep, but improve" !votes that the single purpose accounts all used. Ignored. Ignored: 2, Good: 0, with CardsofTheHeart rewriting the article.
• User:SuperTiencha: Fair. Ignored: 2, Good: 1, with CardsofTheHeart rewriting the article.
• User:Danadewaal: Single purpose account that obviously doesn't have a firm grasp on Wikipedia policy. Ignored: 3, Good: 1, with CardsofTheHeart rewriting the article.

-- ikseevon ^{(T) (E)} 01:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Undelete if Dream Focus commits to working on it. The AfD was a bit messy. No criticism of the closer. Looking at the deleted article, it is not so unreasonable. This is a minor public figure, it has sources, and the subject has many existing mentions in other articles. The Section "Personal life", sourced solely from the subjects facebook page, has to go. Facebook should never be considered sufficiently reliable. An external link to the subject's facebook page would be bad enough, a citation to his facebook page, no. Suggest giving it a couple weeks before renominating at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Per SmokeyJoe's and and Unscintillating's sentiments, and though this is a little unorthodox, I'd be okay/!vote for the outcome of this DRV looking this:

• CardsOfTheHeart's version of the article being re-listed at AFD, with the stuff about Arin's personal life and other unnecessary/unsourced materials being removed and deleted from the history (essentially making it a new article by him/her and User:LinesToThePaper).
• None of the people participating in this DRV may participate in the new AFD. There's a lot of overlap between the people who !voted for deletion and are endorsing it here (and I'm one of them, as the nominator!), so perhaps that will give the Wikipedia community the final consensus necessary on whether this article is ready for inclusion.

-- ikseevon ^{(T) (E)} 01:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Neutral. I like the Destructoid source as far as crediting it as a RS goes, but the RPoncho source is of the nn blog variety and not really something we could use as far as sourcing goes. I agree that the Facebook link as a source should be removed, though. My biggest concern is that so much of the sources on the article are primary in one form or fashion. Egoraptor is a pretty busy guy when it comes to contributing/participating with various sites, which is double edged in that it means that coverage that would otherwise help show notability becomes a primary source sort of by default. To kind of help clear my head, I'm piling the sources into the following sections:

1. In-depth RS coverage: [13]
2. Trivial or semi-trivial RS coverage: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]
3. Debatable': [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]
4. Primary in some form or fashion: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [ [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]
5. Unusable: [43], [44], [45], [46]

The big issue here is that most of the coverage that's about him is so light. I would count the ScrewAttack article as a RS and I definitely count his time as a contestant on The Tester towards notability, but the big issue here is that most of the coverage of his webseries has been trivial or semi-trivial in tone. The stuff I put in "trivial" were the mentions that were under a paragraph or only had him mentioned once. The stuff I put in debatable could work towards notability. I'm mixed on the SA entry that showed him hosting an hour long panel discussion, as that's sort of just a rehosting of a video. That he was asked to host a panel is good, although some might be able to argue that it's not that difficult to get a panel. Being guests at cons and/or hosting panels are sort of a grey area as far as notability goes because while some conventions are harder to get into as a guest (Anime Expo), others will invite a wider variety of people in order to fill space. I put the CrunchyRoll link as debatable because while it is hosted on CR, that doesn't automatically make it a RS and I'd have to know more about the backgrounds of the people who made the movie and such before considering it a RS. The articles that are in-depth about his time on Tester are debatable because by all accounts he was a memorable enough guy on the show while he was on it, but the trouble is that the show never really got that much visibility. It's not exactly on the same lines as the slightly more known shows such as King of The Nerds. There were a lot of primary sources, which are invalid as far as showing notability goes. The ones that definitely need to go are the unusable ones such as the facebook link, the YT video search, and the link to a YT video taken by a random congoer at an AX panel. It shows that he was there as a panel guest, but it's something that's of such dubious usability that I'd recommend not using it at all.

Sorry for this going on so long, but the other issue here is that at times some of the content feels slightly like a fan page rather than a Wikipedia entry. I know that this wasn't DF's intent, but we don't really need some of the extra content such as Hayder commenting on the MGA series or the tweet about the show, among some of the other stuff. It's interesting, but we've got to remember that we have to think about what will ultimately need to be remembered years down the road. Assuming we keep the article it's important to note that Hanson was on the show and that he created MGA, but it's not really all that important to note each person's reaction to it, especially if the sources for these things are relatively dubious or somewhat unusable in nature. The other thing to remember is that while this stuff might be interesting, it can also keep a page from being taken seriously, which is why I kind of hesitate at including a lot of extraneous information- especially if it's something that will often be debated like Hanson. Some of it would be interesting to add at some point, but only if we can get some better sourcing for it. In the end I'm neutral over this. I don't necessarily think that this is ready for the mainspace again just yet, but I can't deny that Hanson is popular and has a decent fan following. I'd like to say that this should be re-added, but he falls ever so slightly short of notability guidelines. There's coverage, but it's mostly trivial. I guess I'd say userfy it for a few more months and see if anything else comes out about him? If we had just one or two more in-depth interviews or articles about him and his work in sources that were undeniably notable (such as GameSpot, EGM, or GamePro), then I'd say it should be kept. I won't argue if it does get re-added, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

All that matters as he got significant coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter what you think about the show he was on, or whatnot. Whether something is remembered years down the road or not is not relevant, nor has it ever been. Otherwise 90% of Wikipedia articles are debatable. Actors and musicians are interviewed on talk shows, and that counts towards their notability, even if the interviewer only asks them about their latest movie or album, without a lot of detail about themselves. The fact is, reliable sources gave them significant coverage. Dream Focus 05:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• The founder of Wikipedia helped clarify this. [ [47]]. Interviews with someone about themselves or something they created count towards notability, it a secondary source in that case, not a primary one you can just discount towards notability. We have enough reliable sources that interview the guy, to thus prove he is notable. Dream Focus 18:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

With all due respect to Mr Wales, long-established community consensus seems to be that interviews (as primary sources not independent of the subject) are not sufficient for establishing notability ( this recent AFD being one example of such a consensus in practice where I originally argued otherwise). Mr Wales is not a Chief Arbitrator of Content, nor of Policy. His opinion is respected but it carries no more weight (as I understand it) than anyone else's. Of course, consensus can change, but I'm not sure it has and opinion from on high doesn't really change that. Otherwise I'll take the opportunity to un-userfy Villemin's article, too, plus about a dozen others. Stalwart 111 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

It's also worth noting that Dream Focus has attempted to make that change to WP:PEOPLE [48], and it was reverted within a couple minutes because it's a change that has not been properly discussed [49]. The current discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) does not seem in his favor, and Mr. Wales comment, in the first place, didn't exactly draw a clear line between interviews and notability. -- ikseevon ^{(T) (E)} 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I assumed it was worked out, but some disagreed. I have been in dozens if not hundreds of AFDs where interviews with the person counted towards their notability. Its just strange how suddenly after years of that being considered common sense, now some are arguing that it isn't. Dream Focus 01:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I think the value of an interview to WP:N depends on the interviewer, where published/broadcast, and the subject covered by the interview (about himself, or something else). It's complicated. Non-notable people don't get formally interviewed. Or was it promotion? In any case, these are questions for AfD not DRV. Let the article stabilise and then get retested at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Dream Focus, your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, trying to change policy, and canvassing just because you didn't like a deletion debate is starting to get tiring here. Secret ^account 05:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

That's not what's going on here. I am simply confirming that interviews prove someone notable, as it has in countless AFDs over the years I've been at Wikipedia. If things were written specifically one way or the other in the guideline pages, then we wouldn't have this problem. Dream Focus 09:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment: For the record, I just noted that Arin Hanson is listed on WP:TOPRED this week, a page which tracks the most popular redlinks on Wikipedia on a weekly basis. However, almost all the hits came on March 13, while the AfD was pending [50].-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 18:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't see that as making any difference. Looking at WP:TOPRED, I don't see anything even in the top 10 that might make a valid article, it's mostly random searches that suggest that a lot of people think Wikipedia is some sort of yellow pages search: "18k Gold Watch", "New Jersey Photographer" and "Florida Mitzvah Disc Jockey" are all in the top 10. TOPRED might have other uses, but fishing for needed articles doesn't appear to be one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply