Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Kuchera (2nd nomination)

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kuchera[edit]

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

When I found the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Kuchera&oldid=589157963 it consisted entirely of articles authored by Ben Kuchera (the topic), attempts to fix it found quite a bit of web-references - mostly in the gaming community blog-o-sphere and forums.

However the topic lacks real significant coverage - the only verifyable mentions were a minor twitter argument, and one paragraph articles marking when he started writing for a new company (all but one were published by his new or previous employer). Thus - though there is coverage out there - it doesn't seem to me as meeting significance - a brief lift from obscurity due to an argument on twitter, whilst his main work is un-noted in third party publications. This for example is typical http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2013/04/30/phil-fish-and-ben-kuchera-are-out-of-touch/ where he is referenced as "someone who shouldn't be taken seriously" - this is typical - attacks of vaguely comic nature on websites on the borderline of what is or is not a reliable source.

Summary - coverage exists - but of patchy and/or unconvincing quality. Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note Talk:Ben_Kuchera#Forbes/Twitter - in which another editor questions the validity of many of the sources I did find - whilst I do not totally agree with their view, if those sources were removed it would leave an article virtually in the state as I found it - based on primary sources, written by the topic of the article.Prof.Haddock (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restate my view - this guy is not notable right now - he really has no real coverage apart from some minor blowup about a twitter argument - the sources for which are very borderline in terms of whether they are actually self published, let alone whether or not they are reliable sources.

On the other hand he has a fair record in the video games journalism field ie Ars Technica, Penny Arcade, Polygon (website), and is not a "total-non-entity" -your call .. Prof.Haddock (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – there are a few sources. The guy seems to be well known for his writing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, credited with helming the Penny Arcade Report, which was widely considered (source needed) to be one of the best sources of games Journalism (capital J) in the industry. Broke a lot of stories. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:04, 23 January 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.