Talk:Cory Scott (NiTROACTiVE)/VfD 20130806

You guys really need some kind of WP:COI equivalent. Grain of Salt 02:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to propose one, but IMO it would do more harm than good. Unlike Wikipedia, we routinely cover topics with no known written records ; sometimes the only way to create an accurate article is with the involved parties' help.  We can't prove that a Doom Wiki account belongs to a certain person anyway; sometimes we think it's a troll impersonating them (e.g. Ruba).  We end up having to judge each edit as though made by an unrelated editor, and when we do, the large majority turn out non-notable regardless.  Some more previous discussion is here.    Ryan W 06:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. It's just irritating to see articles that exist to massage someone's ego. Grain of Salt 02:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see how reviewing crappy Doom Wads, especially Terry wads to be something notable.  Other than reviewing Doom Wads, he has done nothing notable within the Doom Community, so I agree with the nomination. Justice ∞ 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Objection: This guy also has an upcoming megawad coming up, but why doesn't having over a thousand people who like you make you notable? 01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. Grain of Salt 02:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Objection. This guy is great. He deserves his own page! He's worked hard on his videos. 01:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please sign your comments by typing four tildes ( ~ ) or clicking the "your signature with timestamp" button above the editing window. Grain of Salt 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Answer me this question, how is reviewing WADs as something that is notable? I'm assuming that the anonymous ip that voted for objection is you unless I'm mistaken?  To answer that objection, why should having a couple thousand subscribers that like Aquarius as a good reason to keep this page?  Katamori is another member of the Doom community that has much more subscribers than this guy, yet he doesn't get a page. Justice ∞ 02:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is notable because he works hard at it and is very good at it. If you want a wiki page for Katamori why don't you go make one? Canofbacon 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So because he works hard at making reviews is somehow notable reason as to why the admins should keep the article? The reason why I'm not making a page for Katamori is because just like Aquarius, he's done nothing notable within the Doom community unless I'm somehow mistaken when it comes to his contributions.  Plus I don't see how having thousands of subscribers should be something noteworthy.  It is advised, however that you read the Criteria for people articles to see if he actually qualifies for an article, because I'm pretty sure that doing WAD reviews isn't something that's noteworthy to the community. Justice ∞ 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "The person being written up should have done something notable." He makes WADs and he has a large fanbase. That's hard to achieve. "The article should be about their contributions to the Doom community." It is. "List the person's achievements" I did. "Include a link to their website and/or released projects in an "External links" section at the end of the article." Yup. Canofbacon 7:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with the non-notability comments. Unless he has something more significant in his portfolio, this is just trivia around some guy that happens to play Doom. --Chungy (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is extremely difficult. How many mods does someone need to produce before they are notable? Our policy is unclear and half-hearted and is resulting in these years-long arguments. IMO, if someone is both a (popular?) YouTube reviewer AND an active editor, that's cause at least to spell out exactly what is making this person non-notable or notable. We can't continue to judge content based on a totally arbitrary opinion-based metric like what's been happening with these articles up until now, I know that much. From my POV as webmaster, here's the facts: 101 people searched for this guy last month (from today backward) and 12 of them clicked on our article to get more information. That's not huge CTR or a huge number of searches, but it *is* somewhere in the midrange for us (we have thousands of pages searched for once and clicked on once or never). --Quasar (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, looking into the article history, I become very confused. User:Canofbacon originally created the article. I'm not seeing evidence that he did this in bad faith or self-interest, but feel free to prove otherwise. Then User:Justice Infinity took the opportunity to point himself out as a subject, adding words like "infamous" in front of "Doomguy2000". That was clearly inappropriate, but up until then no one had taken objection to this article, including regular editors such as User:Eris Falling. User:Grain of Salt then nominated the article for deletion, apparently based on this. Is this guilt by association? If so, the nomination was not made in good faith and is invalid. --Quasar (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, since you used me as an example, I figured I'd try and give an opinion on this. How many mods does someone need to produce before they are notable? None, surely? Maps and mods are only one part of what is contributed by the Doom community. Why would a WAD reviewer, a well known one at that, not be notable? If reviewers aren't notable, why did no-one object when Kmxexii make his own page? Admittedly, I don't know much about Aquarius. As far as I know, he's best known for reviewing Terry wads, which really don't deserve the attention and maybe in that sense, he is not notable. Then again, neutrality etc.
 * Brilliant. My opinion is that I have no opinion. --Eris Falling (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)