Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Stemkoski

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Stemkoski[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Dan Stemkoski" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Nick Plott" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

I don't think we've ever accepted a StarCraft commentator as notable. I suppose it's possible, so I bring it here for a decision. (see adjacent afd) DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can I request that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Plott and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Stemkoski be merged so as to minimize repetition? czar · · 05:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)~~ ✓ czar · · 16:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 06:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'm not frankly sure that they meet the notability guidelines, but I'm sure those more active in the Starcraft community might disagree. Google News only returns one article, and a regular Google search brings up his Facebook and Twitter before most anything else, so he's not widely known. I'd say keep it for now and revisit in a year. RyanGrant (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To the nom's point, HuskyStarcraft has been accepted at AfD and Sean Plott will likely never be challenged. As for Stemkoski and Nick Plott in this AfD, they're possibly the best known of the lot. Polygon (well-respected video game site) called them "the most well-known StarCraft 2 casting duo in the world", "broadcast[ing] to millions of viewers around the world" with sponsorships and a cult following. The Polygon feature puts them both over the threshold of doubtful significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which will only increase as the nascent field expands. If necessary, I'd additionally argue for WP:ENT #3 per the aforementioned quotes. And searches for their given names (especially as a string) will yield little since the commentators are primarily known by nicknames "Artosis" (Stemkoski) and "Tasteless" (Plott). They're also based in Korea, but I don't have the prowess to find reliable Korean gaming sources. czar · · 03:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there much beyond the Polygon source though? Usually it takes more than one source, even if its reliable and in-depth... Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated coverage other than the P feature include [1] and [2], and as mentioned in the article, 'The Verge's Paul Miller referred to Tastosis as "the primary practitioners of StarCraft casting".'[3] There's other coverage on their prominence, but these are the articles about the commentators in specific from American secondary sources. (I'm not familiar with the "reliable" eSports-dedicated sites or their Korean analogues.) czar · · 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find video game sources: "Tasteless StarCraft" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Artosis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Tastosis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2013 (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) 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:39, 26 July 2013 (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.