Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:54, 28 October 2014

GameJournoPros

GameJournoPros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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)

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/search/?title=GameJournoPros&action=history ArtemisiaPoppycock (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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

• 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. Arc 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Redirect to Gamergate controversy — essentially a WP:POVFORK attempt. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, Non-notable. This looks like nothing more than a flimsy excuse to cite Breitbart conspiracy theories on Misplaced Pages. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates