Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasteless

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. Consensus seems to favor the position that the few sources that meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source have not covered this subject in depth. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tasteless[edit]

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

Not notable gamer. Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not think of anything why he is notable.--Stone (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep but Rename: From Wikipedia:Notability_(sports), "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". Article should be renamed to Nick Plott (which is currently a redirect). I know notability is not inherited (Sean Plott is his brother), but he did compete in the 2005 World Cyber Games, which I believem meets the requirements for notability. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of third party sources confirming notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean lack of second party sources? I added quite a few myself. I don't think tertiary sources are a good indicator of reliability according to notability guidelines ""Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [1] Liquipedia is considered a reliable source for members of the pro-starcraft community. de Bivort 16:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reliable source for Wikipedia, however. --Teancum (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It meets all the WP:RS guidelines. Also, rename de Bivort 20:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPS. Teamliquid is a fansite and a wiki. I have a wiki about my cat, but that doesn't make it a reliable source for Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up a question about the TeamLiquid player database. It's cited in WCG information, in almost all StarCraft related news, etc. And per WP:USEBYOTHERS I'm tempted to say the teamliquid player database is a reliable source, if used to verify information or statistics. (It's not wiki format) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidpedia does not technically fall within WP:SPS as it is a wiki that is well policed and subject to greater monitoring and review than wikipedia therefore one could see the case for using sources from liquidpedia on a page by page basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but there's no way to prove that is the case with Liquidpedia aside from your word. Regardless Wikis are expressly forbidden. --Teancum (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only open wikis are expressly banned - and moreover wiki rules are meant to be broken. de Bivort 16:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment if kept, rename since tasteless is the absence of taste or bad taste, and there are articles related to that. A disambiguation page should be primary. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This economist article mentions the english commentary, but not Plott by name, though it does mention his brother by name. de Bivort 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words it is no way near "significant coverage". Neither are any of the sources which have been added to the article. Quantpole (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added significant number of sources, removed possibly contentious BLP materials. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise why you consider that the sources in the article constitute significant coverage, 'cos I aint seeing it. Quantpole (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody removed two of the sources I added >.>. Just readded them. Two sources provide context for him as a caster, one is an interview, featuring him, one is a secondary source talking about how he will be the first english language caster in Korea: all fairly convincing evidence of notability. One talks about how he is the official caster for a blizzard sanctioned event. Citing WP:N "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does being a caster (even an english language in Korea) mean someone is notable? The sources only say that he is doing it, but don't shed any further light on why it is important or notable. And yes, while he doesn't have to be the main topic of the source, I believe a little more information than for example "...featuring commentary from Nick "Tasteless" Plott." is required to be termed significant coverage. All it looks like to me is that he has a job doing commentary on some games competition. I cannot see how that is prima facie notable, and the coverage is not there to meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple sources from reputable websites and I think that certain sections of the text could be enlarged as they seem to be more of a short summary than proper prose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 07:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, few to none of the sources pass WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 4 March 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, -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources with an emphasis on reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources. If the article is kept for some reason, please have someone translate it into English that everyone can understand. Racepacket (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage in reliable, independent sources. Not sure why someone above has used WP:NSPORTS as a rationale to keep seeing as that guideline is about sports, which Starcraft definitely is not. BigDom talk 08:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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