Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameJournoPros

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. Almost everyone agrees that there's no independent notability here, but there's roughly equal support for deleting and for redirecting. Either has the effect of removing the article from view, so there's little practical difference between the options. Since, however, there may well be BLP problems in the article's history, deleting seems the more prudent course. If anyone wants to create a redirect from this title to Gamergate controversy#GameJournoPros, he or she is free to do so. Deor (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GameJournoPros[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When you had marked the page for speedy deletion, admin East718 ruled on the article's notability on the revision history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GameJournoPros&action=history ArtemisiaPoppycock (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Marking something as "...makes assertion of notability..." is different than actually having notability. The article fails to provide notability. reddogsix (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2014 (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) 23:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Ars Technica piece does cover the topic in detail as do the Breitbart articles. The other articles are much more focused on the GamerGate connection. Ars Technica is an RS, but as far as I know Breitbart is not. The minimum inclusion criteria (WP:GNG) requires multiple RSes covering the topic in significant depth. My first impression is that I only see one... At a minimum, however, this should clearly be redirected to (if not merged into) GamerGate rather than simply deleted. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd love to see that, but I don't see that as feasible in the near future, given that the Wiki page on the Gamergate controversy is embroiled in an edit war, and any mention of the GJP groups is continually deleted. The GameJournoPros leaks are a noteworthy event, having been verified and commented on by its own members, and the information should be available to Wiki readers interested in the ongoing controversy.

According to the General Notability Guidelines you linked, there are five criteria that a topic must meet to be suitable for a standalone article.

Significant coverage: the GJP is more than a trivial mention in all of these sources (excluding Re/code, which is a glossary-like piece), and the guidelines state that it need not be the main topic (Gamergate) of the source material.
Reliable: Forbes is a reliable source, and the Editor's statements from Ars Technica, Polygon and GamePolitics regarding GJP, along with Usher's interview, are also reliable, as they are first-hand accounts from members (and in Orland's case, creator) of the Google Group. Breitbart is obviously a slanted news source, but all the leaked lists and email dumps have been verified by Orland, Grant, Fudge, and Usher, and Wiki policy states that reliable sources are not required to neutral or unbiased (WP:Bias). Also, Breitbart has been cited in its specific involvement in the Anthony Weiner sexting scandals and the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, so there is a precedent.
Sources and independence from the subject are a bit a up in the air, as Orland, Grant and Fudge's articles could arguably be considered too "close" to the subject matter. I used the precedent set in the JournoList page, which featured official statements from J-list members defending their involvement.
Presumed: I think this one is clear. ArtemisiaPoppycock (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me really centers on the lack of significant coverage. We have Ars Technica kind of going into the history of the group and presenting context, but then all of the other article just cover the GamerGate related leaks. Even if it met GNG (and I think that's debatable) I'm having a difficult time imagining that the article could ever be more than a stub. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, such an outcome is not really an attractive option. Anyway it's not like there are no sources, the topic just seems more like an element of another topic to me. -Thibbs (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gamergate controversy. As mentioned by Thibbs, all but one source are about its relation to other events, mostly Gamergate but also JournoList. Woodroar (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely not notable and WP:BLP issues up the wazoo. This was expressly excluded from the Gamergate controversy article for these reasons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gamergate controversy — essentially a WP:POVFORK attempt. Also, Breitbart is in no way acceptable as a reliable source for claims about what living people may or may not have done, and I have removed all information allegedly sourced to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Non-notable. This looks like nothing more than a flimsy excuse to cite Breitbart conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Gamergate controversy Needs only a mention (preferably more but we aren't allowed to support gg in any way shape or form) more in the main article, not enough notability to have its own article Retartist (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gamergate controversy not enough notability to have its own article Retartist (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since it was specifically rejected by Gamergate controversy, it seems improper to redirect it there. I agree that this seems like a POV fork. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTINHERITED. The mailing list itself not notable in the slightest, the only link to notability is via its very minor role in the Gamergate controversy. I'm not even sure it is worth as redirect. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gamergate controversy The mailing list is notable, sourced, and relevant enough to be mentioned in the Gamergate article. And it should be.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Most sources are about other events. However, I consider it a likely search term and a redirect would fill that need. Taketa (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The list is not notable, but because of the furor of Gamergate, it is a very viable search term tied to GG. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Q ^{T C} 17:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's certainly a part of the Gamergate controversy and not independently notable, but it's a significant part and the article in question is getting quite long. (Dunno wiki policy on when it becomes too long, so I'm eyeballing it - by all means merge if it's not near the limit and we can cover this in detail in that article) Its existence has been confirmed by all parties involved and although a Breitbart reporter leaked its existence it is not the only outlet discussing it. 209.6.166.24 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Existing does not denote independent notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what "not" means? 209.6.166.24 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I also know that it's not independently notable from Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And my post agrees on that count, making a different argument for inclusion, so why did you feel the need to respond with that point? 209.6.166.24 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if it's not independently notable from Gamergate, then it should not be kept. Your rationale does not match the proper way things are done on the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:SPINOUT. I believe that's the issue and not WP:GNG Dreadstar ☥ 05:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. 97.90.153.202 (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not as notable, merging with gamergate controversy could be a good idea but I don't see any hope. Noteswork (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GamerGate controversy even though it's a big part of GamerGate's foundation, I don't think it has been covered enough, and suspiciously, not at all by more mainstream media. Still I find the info on GPS on the GamerGate article lacking Loganmac (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not notable enough for an article or even a redirect. Stesmo (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't a requirement for redirects. If it was notable then why would anyone redirect it? This is a closely related word so per WP:POFRED there is good reason to use it as a redirect. The goal of redirects is simple: to assist readers. If the term gets close to 40k GHITS then it's clearly an important search term. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GamerGate controversy, which allows future potential for a quality improvement project, and maintains history, and redirects are cheap. — Cirt (talk) 03:52, 1 November 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.