Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rekcahdam

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rekcahdam[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No reliable secondary sources. A search of google hits for the subject provide little more than primary sources, blogs and web forums. Trusilver 05:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article came from 'Rekcahdam' himself and an editor on here. Eindeadmiles (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)— Eindeadmiles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is that intended to be a reason to delete the article or keep it? This only means that on top of notability issues, there's also a conflict of interest issue. Trusilver 06:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but it seems like it.Eindeadmiles (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 'Rekcahdam' and have no affiliation with him. I obtained the referenced information on my own and decided to create this page after following him for quite some time. I have admittedly emailed him but have yet to receive a reply. Rekcahdam (aka Roger Hicks) does in fact have notability among the gaming community as of this year. Searching 'Celestial Mechanica', 'rComplex', 'Rekcahdam' and Roger Hicks on google will produce results to defend my claim. My sources are reliable as they are used and have been relied on by the gaming community for years. Both indiegames and kotaku, although blogs, have been considered valid sources for over 4 years. Due to the nature and culture of the video game community sites, such as these, are considered to be valid journalism. I have removed my inclusion of the links to Roger's personal site per the Total PC Gaming Magazine reference but, I noticed that several other wikipedia.org pages have included their personal sites and gaming blogs as well. Laura Shigihara , who's page is referenced in the article, is a perfect example of this. Another example is the Pixel (game developer) page which includes links to 1UP.com which can also be considered unreliable by your terms. How are these pages allowed if 'Rekcahdam' is not?LightyKD (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I may agree that the article can be improved but the majority of the inline citations provided are reliable and from reputable sources backed by wikipedia itself. Indiegames.com is a game news site owned by UBM TechWeb (aka UBM plc ) which, according to it's wikipedia page, has been around since 1918. Indiegames.com simply brings light to many independent developers who otherwise would not have gained attention. Roger Hicks is among these developers and, after doing much research, I've found that he has been featured numerous times for his games rComplex, Stream, Celestial Mechanica and fan works based on his games.Kotaku is also backed by wikipedia itself and research can be done to prove its reputation as a reliable video game news source. His works have been published in 2 magazines (BGamer and Total PC Gaming) but I can only reference one because the pages are only found directly on his website. But, as I said previously, linking directly to the personal website of the article's subject is not uncommon. It has been done with Laura Shigihara and Pixel (game developer). There are several other sources I could also mention here as well. For example; Destructoid, Rock Paper Shotgun and PLAYISM, which is a product of Active Gaming Media, all mention that Celestial Mechanica was displayed at the most recent Tokyo Game Show which I cited (or will cite) in the article . You simply cannot ignore all of this and claim that there is no notability and no reliable sources here. LightyKD (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)— LightyKD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are sources (such as to his website) that provide useful info but are not WP:RS as they are primary and not independent. There are sources that cover one or more of his games, but only tangentially the man himself. Again, useful info, but not much use to show notability, which is WP:NOTINHERITED. Zero hits on GNews. GNews for "Roger Hicks" shows only hits to other people with the same name, as far as I can tell. GEverything provides mostly primary or tangential references. About the best thing RS-wise is a podcast-type interview on a small gamer website here. Allmusic has no bio or albums, but does list a couple of small credits on other people's albums, under his given name. Last.fm shows 35 listeners for a song he was featured on. He may yet warrant his own WP entry, but I don't think this is even a close call at the moment. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: If one is to allege the subject meets the GNG, where are the reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail?" Indiegames.com bills itself as a blog, and the two reviews are two short paragraphs apiece about the game, mentioning his name and nothing more. The Rock Paper Shotgun and kotaku.com reviews have three short paragraphs apiece about the game, mentioning his name and nothing more. The gamercareerguide.com cite was written by the subject himself. That some of these sites have Wikipedia articles do not make them reliable sources, nor does the subject's name being mentioned in passing confer notability, since notability is not inherited. Like Hobbes Goodyear, I don't consider this remotely close; even if you presumed they constituted reliable journalism by our standards, the sources presented that don't come from the subject's own website or from his own pen don't discuss him at all, let alone in "significant detail." Ravenswing 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.