Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HuskyStarcraft (3rd 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. Arguments explaining the subject passes point 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG appear well-backed by significant, independent coverage by sources commonly accepted as reliable for this purpose. The arguments for deletion claim the subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER but without explaining the basis for that counter-claim. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HuskyStarcraft

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

Individual Not Notable, Systemic Bias (page created, updated, and of interest entirely to Youtube subscribers), Note: third time article has been nominated for deletion Selmatoed (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has coverage in reliable sources and seems to be at the top of his profession, even if it's a rather obscure profession. Systemic Bias isn't in itself grounds for deletion, and if you're concerned about it, you're better off writing articles on Angolan handicrafts rather than trying to delete videogame articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias agrees with me). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made a mistake including that. I apologize. Thank you for your suggestion. Selmatoed (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears in virtually nothing reliable except fan sites. Has the occasional mention on a notable video game site but basically nothing else in books or reliable sources. —Ed!^(talk) 15:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, I agree with Colapeninsula's comments. Does Selmatoed have something against The Game Station employees? NotMiserable (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quickly respond that this is not the case (without diverting from the discussion here), I'm actually a fan/subscriber to husky and TB's Youtube channels, which is why I stumbled upon these articles. However, as someone who uses Wikipedia a lot, I felt it was quite a stretch for these two individuals to be listed in this encyclopedia with information on their personal life, video games "clans" and so on. Overall, it's just my personal opinion that these subjects don't meet notability for Wikipedia, so I went through the normal process. Selmatoed (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER, though I can't imagine what the heck systemic bias has to do with it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a e-sports game caster/commentator doesn't really fit with WP:ENTERTAINER NotMiserable (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well he sure as all heck doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought I understood the Systemic Bias thing but I guess I don't. I just meant that the article is frequently updated - and exists- solely by highly internet-savvy fans of the gaming youtube channel, and that there is undue detail given to the subject. Selmatoed (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2013 (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) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Called a "hero of the PC gaming community" by PC Gamer. Has a large cult following. Ars Technica did a lengthy article on him and his role in the SC2 community: [1]. Seems sufficient to pass WP:BIO. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that the blog Ars Technica did was a mere 600 words, not particularly lengthy by their standards. In addition, because the video game-oriented PC Gamer (online edition) posted a blog which included the words "community hero" (not your paraphrased version) does not mean that HuskyStarcraft is a "hero" nor notable by encyclopedic standards. Would like to reiterate per Ed that he "appears in virtually nothing reliable except fan sites" with "the occasional mention on a notable video game site but basically nothing else in books or reliable sources." (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources)

You seem to be biased against internet sources. While you are entitled to your opinion, the community has repeatedly accepted internet sources as reliable and therefore sufficient to verify notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Odie has shown, it seems that he passes WP:ENTERTAINER, not fails it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HuskyStarcraft's YouTube following does not qualify him as a cult figure, nor does he qualify as notable per WP: ENTERTAINER, WP: CREATIVE, WP: FILMMAKER, or WP: ATHLETE. Selmatoed (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - does not meet WP: ENTERTAINER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.8.172 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.237.74.111 (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His youtube following can constitute a large fan base per WP:ENTERTAINER. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet GNG based on cited third party sources. Internet sources are still sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:42, 20 January 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.