Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Software

Pirate Software

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article was created in an obvious attempt to circumvent the very recent prior consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbound (video game) and the older consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Software (game developer), collectively establishing that Wikipedia should not cover this topic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt The article leans heavily on a Mashable article from 2024 that has no consensus for reliability, and a Sports Illustrated article from 2025 that is an unreliable source. The Game Developer source is a primary-sourced interview. Therefore, I think the sourcing is too weak to pass WP:NENTERTAINER, and he hasn't directed sufficient notable games to pass WP:NARTIST. It's possible he could still become notable in the future, but it should require approval from an admin to recreate such an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still too early. Most of the article relies on the recent controversy therefore it also does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (leaning towards): While I initially created the deletion discussion for the Heartbound games page, because it was clearly written with a COI as an ad-piece and lacked any notability and sources on the entire internet, as also then found in the discussion, I am more hesitant to immediately call the creator of this game not noteworthy enough, as even the Hawk Tuah girl has received an article. The problem and my reasoning for leaning towards deletion is this: The person in question has successfully fabricated his biography through constantly repeated and now found to be conflicting statements (repeating them everywhere until they were believed to be true) to the extend that there is now no verifiable sources for most of his supposed doing/work. In addition to that even through the deletion discussion for his game there was a fierce debate in his discord server as to how one could “change the narrative” and “create sources that support the [supposedly] correct viewpoint”. These efforts have muddied the water even more. So the only argument for noteworthiness relies on the viewing numbers of this streamer, I find that rather weak, but if this discussion finds another consensus than deletion, I would prefer the article to be shortened immensely to more relevant and highly verified facts (like the hawk tuah page) and then locked until further developments. Otherwise I do agree with above comments on this being a circumvention of previous deletions, which were supported by lack of notability and most importantly any *unbiased* sources.

TheDigamma (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources rather than rumors and suspicions. In the assumption that he lied about his past, this is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and we rely on sources to vet the information as accurate. The only question here is "are there enough reliable sources" and the answer seems to be no. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my language. My thinking/argument was: for most persons interviews can be considered as somewhat reliable sources. For this person this is not possible, therefore a large number of sources that currently support this article are not reliable. TheDigamma (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Since the 2022 deletion, the article’s subject has won two awards for streaming content and gained notoriety for his political activism. Adding a section on his Heartbound game also contributes notability, and is a suitable replacement for having an entire separate article about the game.

I find the accusation of 'an obvious attempt to circumvent ... prior consensus' fails WP:AGF, and the conclusion that the previous threads 'collectively [establish] that Wikipedia should not cover this topic' infers too much. One thread is recent but establishes that an entire article on its topic would be excessive, but that doesn't imply that a subsection of another article wouldn't be an appropriate way of documenting it until/unless it gains more notability; the other is three years old and clearly predates significant events increasing the subject's notability. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Adding a section on his Heartbound game also contributes notability..." It does not. Notability is not inherited from things someone creates, and the game itself is non-notable anyway. Otherwise, please state which sources demonstrate WP:NBIO is passed, rather than relying on the argument of WP:FAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have to then ask whether the awards he won count as "significant" under NBIO's definition. I am, personally, not convinced. The Streamer Awards page seems non-notable on its face, with the only SIGCOV being about the trophy being a hate symbol - not exactly stellar evidence of its significance. Unless the Streamer Awards can be determined as a major honor, this is doubtful - it's more reserved for obviously huge achievements like a Purple Heart, Emmy Award or Presidential Medal of Freedom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're new awards in a fairly new category of entertainer, and the only major awards for which an entertainer of that kind would regularly be eligible. One might as well write off all streamers as non-notable if one is going to go down this path. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that means all streamers aren't notable. Some streamers have received tons of mainstream coverage in reliable sources, which doesn't require winning awards to have. Awards can contribute to notability but certainly aren't required for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Zx. Not suitable here and NARTIST and NENTERTAINER are obviously not met. I also would hardly call Heartbound a significant enough game to go towards NARTIST. It is not a critically acclaimed or highly notable game - the article was literally deleted for it. By applying the logic that Heartbound contributes towards it, then basically any indie game developer would be able to get an article regardless of how notable their game is (even if it only received the bare minimum reviews to psss GNG). But that isn't how things work. I also would not consider the Streamer Awards to be a significant award. Furthermore, I personally would throw any sort of subject-specific guideline out the window in favor of GNG, because at WP:Notability, it clearly states "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia". So the subject doesn't pass GNG, does not have strong enough sourcing, isn't a sufficient topic for an encyclopedia... yeah, I'm comfortable with completely throwing any sort of NPERSON SNG out the window here. λ NegativeMP1 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has enough reliable sources to warrant its existence, which was the reason the previous articles were deleted. Sure, the Heartbound section may get removed, but the entire article? You guys are on crack. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 17:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources are reliable? TheDigamma (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources aren't reliable? We’ve got Eurogamer, IGN, the Times of India, the Verge, Mashable ... there are some other sites cited which I haven't heard of, but I'm not a huge gamer myself so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (personally — someone who knows more about what sources in this subject area are reliable could maybe point to any particular problematic ones). The article would probably stand up to fair scrutiny even with only those five, though. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the ones present the following are GR per WP:RSP and WP:VG/S: The Verge (2), PCGamesN (2), GamesRadar+ (2), IGN (1), Shacknews (1), Game Developer (1), Dot Esports (2), GamesIndustry.biz (1), Hobby Consolas (1), AUTOMATON (1), PC Gamer (1) and Gamepressure.com (2). 17 generally reliable sources, most of which mention or reference him in the title. (as Pirate Software, Thor, ex-Blizzard dev, etc.) Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 17:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the collection you've mentioned I can poke holes in the following:

• Consensus appears to indicate that the Mashable article is not a reliable source, which also is in part an interview.

• The PC gamer article makes no mention of Jason Hall, only his father, and is being used as WP:OR to back up the Mashable article.

• The PCGamesN articles are both only used in brief mentions in the lead section that are used to say that he is a streamer and game developer respectively without anything pertaining to Hall's work.

• IGN article is used only once to cite Heartbound, which has been established as failing to meet notability guidelines.

• Both GamesRadar+ articles seem to literally just restate his own videos that he has uploaded. Additionally, the first one (regarding Hades) is not relevant to anything in his career.

• The Game Developer article is entirely an interview without dialogue between the interviewer, leaving it effectively written by Hall.

UppercutPawnch (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Heartbound has been established as not notable enough for its own article. This article should certainly mention it because it belongs to why the subject is notable, which means Heartbound needs a cite. 2. We’re talking about reliability here. What claim a source is used to back up is a different question from the source’s reliability. IGN’s reliability is not in doubt. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This article was moved to the main space one day after the related article for Heartbound was nominated for deletion; Heartbound is a major section of this article and one of the major three (work history, heartbound, controversies) that has generally reliable albeit few sources. Since moved to main space, the article had and continues to have issues, mainly WP:NPOV and WP:V.

A majority of my edits were for style and MOS:EDITORIAL. However, I cannot reconcile that sources of dubious reliability, especially the Wikipedia:MASHABLE source, is frequently relied upon in the bio (the article is also an interview with the subject). Referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbound (video game), one source (Paek, Game Developer) previously assessed as not counting to GNG, and one partially compliant source (Jagneaux, IGN) have been again referred to in this loosely related article.

Otherwise, I agree that this article falls under Wikipedia:Sustained. Recent scandals are the source of a lot of information in this article, Heartbound was recently assessed as not notable, and the biography relies on too many sources with dubious reliability or interviews. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The move to mainspace was not made because of the deletion of Heartbound. I worked on the draft of this article, trying to find as much reliable sources as I could. After scouring the Google's news tab while constantly checking the WP:VG/S page for several days, I decided that I found what I could, removed unsourced info and moved the article to mainspace. So no correlation to the Heartbound deletion whatsoever, just bad timing. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 17:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, let me clarify then that I don't agree with the accusation of circumvention, just that the Heartbound discussion included general discussions on reliability and the mention of sources that fall under WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, and that I believe this applies to this article where it is a major section. Nonetheless, I still stand by my assessment as a whole. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per comments above by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, TheDigamma, and TheAlienAdventures. That the subject has fabricated his biography through constantly repeated and now found to be conflicting statements and that the article has contained some of these WP:BLP issues with NPOV, V, etc. is also a cause to TNT and begin again. GuardianH 21:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge SKG and only the Stop Killing Games sections into, well, Stop Killing Games. Gamepressure seems reliable (see also VG/S) and sources that section with a pretty important part of the initiative's history. Meanwhile, the WoW incident is borderline notable and doesn't contribute enough content to justify a standalone article for a living person whose details are fuzzy, and probably belongs better in the article for the OnlyFangs clan's leader. For the rest of the article, I find the arguments for TNT convincing. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT Anything of note can, and has, been mentioned in the respective article itself. If done properly this page would be an amalgam of "See main article" links over and over again. He won an award? Mention that on the award page. He caused issues for Stop Killing Games? Mention that on the Stop Killing Games page. Once you get past that, there's nothing left to mention. Padillah (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SKG per Aaron Liu. I agree with the arguments above by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, TheDigamma, and TheAlienAdventures as to why this article should be deleted, though I believe the section on Stop Killing Games has enough notability to significantly add onto the article on that topic. I am hesitant to believe that this article is a circumvention attempt per Daphne Preston-Kendal, though I will note that I do recognize a few editors on this page that also seem to have participated in the development in the Heartbound article when I lurked during the AfD and I am concerned with biased editing in favor of the streamer due to negative comments made about this page in his personal Discord. UppercutPawnch (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire article seems to hinge on two events with one being more questionable on the notable side. This seems to be WP:SINGLEEVENT. Though of course with only with two events as opposed to one.

i could very well see the deletion of the wow controversy due to its quality and notability. Which would further bring into question the notability of this current wiki. LordOfPeepz (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt to prevent recreations in the near future. Yue🌙 07:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I don't think the recent controversy surrounding SKG or every other petty drama he's been warrants an article. Majoriminorionoj (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SKG per above 1timeuse75 (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge with SKG or Draftify. I would rather not delete and/or salt unless there is absolutely no choice. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 22:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it! 2803:9800:B018:7EE1:D95F:CDFC:75EA:3723 (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]