Talk:Cory Scott (NiTROACTiVE)/VfD 20130806


This is an historical Vote-for-Deletion discussion. To see current discussion about the parent article, see Talk:Cory Scott (NiTROACTiVE).


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 [1]; 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . 01:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Objection. This guy is great. He deserves his own page! He's worked hard on his videos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majorarlene (talkcontribs) . 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)
The only things I did to the article was, clean it up, and re-add the deletion tag which was removed by someone (probably one of aquarius' fans). I did however nominate the redirect for deletion because it was a redirect for this page right here. The infamous part was already there when Canofbacon created the article. Justice ∞ (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You're correct so I apologize for the accusation. I misread the history. --Quasar (talk) 17:47, 27 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)
Didn't mean to single you out as though to suggest what your opinion on the VfD would be, just that you were a contributing editor to the article. I feel the point that this guy does have a number of released mods is being missed though. He's not just a YouTube reviewer and the arguments above seem to be entirely assuming that. --Quasar (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a better question then would be if these mods themselves are notable. Given there wasn't a page for Tormentor667 of all people until about an hour ago, I'm a bit sceptical. Don't take this as a delete vote though. --Eris Falling (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make him non-notable, it just means no one got around to starting the article.  :>   Not all COMPET-N maps have articles, for instance.    Ryan W (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
From my POV the argument of "X is important and has no article, so Y isn't justified in existing" isn't so much an argument that favors deletion of Y, but prioritization of efforts on X. There's no reason in such a case we shouldn't create article X, but that has no bearing ultimately on the existence of article Y. Just means we have some persistent stubborn blind spots in our coverage. --Quasar (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've always wonder if Aquarius just reviewing wads is good enough for nobility, then again he does make appearances in other Terrywads and probably has an influence on that genre of WADs. Like I said before, none of his wads alone make him notable, just him mostly reviewing Terrywads. Am I allowed to change my vote or do I still have keep my vote for deletion? Justice ∞ (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
No, you can change it.  Might help to strike out the word "delete" in your other post however.    Ryan W (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reviewing WADs on YouTube is not being notable, having posted three crappy WADs online is not being notable either. --Kyano (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
In your opinion. Our policy is not anywhere clear that "only posting three WADs" doesn't equal notability. If that's what we want it to say, then get on over to Doom Wiki talk:Criteria for people articles and say so, please. --Quasar (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's in my opinion. VfDs are for posting opinions. If we had a clear policy on that matter we would need no VfD (or at least not a VfD as large and intense as this one). And I did not say anything about that criteria because I think having a policy on what's notable or not does not work and it's better to have people create new articles and then VfD them if necessary. But that would work better if VfD actually were paid attention to. --Kyano (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
So a new editor would have to pick through 100 old VfDs to try to guess the standard?  Or perhaps create a dozen stubs of varying quality to see which were deleted, and hope they didn't get blocked in the process so they could keep contributing?  Come on.    Ryan W (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd argue that Illuminatus, at least, is a notable enough work (i.e., it's a real work by the author, and although being generally considered as being mediocre, it shows a honest attempt at trying to make a good mapset rather than a quick trollwad or crapwad; it has been published on idgames and received /newstuff chronicles reviews here and there and an ongoing 5+ page project thread). By being the author of a notable enough work, Cory becomes also a notable enough author. The YouTube reviews are more anecdotal as far as I'm concerned, but since he's notable enough to get a page, and they are Doom-related, then they deserve a mention on said page. (For the comparison with kmxexii, I'd argue again that the greatest reason for notability was his contribution to the Cacowards, with the reviews being tied to that Cacoward aspect.) I'd also like to bring attention to Quasar's "webmaster" argument: people are coming to this wiki to find information on this person; maybe not enough to write home about but given our community's size still too many to dismiss quickly. As a last point, it seems to me all the effort spent debating on whether or not this article should be kept would be better spent working on other articles that are more in need of attention. --Gez (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Going to go ahead and put in my official vote (was avoiding in hopes of establishing clearer policy first, but alas), as I agree with Gez's reasoning which is already clear as a bell with respect to current policy and jives with my own feel on the subject. --Quasar (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not a huge fan of these notability arguments (though I understand the rationale that every Joe Schmoe who slapped up a WAD or two back in '95 and then left Dooming forever doesn't necessitate a page.) Didn't feel particularly inclined to cast a vote until now, but if the Eric Yick Leung page is worthy of being on here, then so is this. -- ETTiNGRiNDER (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll note that page hasn't been considered for notability. ConSiGno created it, and since it existed, I did as much research as possible trying to find out information about the person. Unfortunately time has erased a lot, and to be frank, the page is almost entirely redundant to content on the Versions of Doom and Doom II article. I warned CSG that it might not pass scrutiny of other users. --Quasar (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to change my vote to from Delete to Keep. Last year when this article was nominated for deletion, he had around 2k subscribers, now he has around 6k subscribers and will only be a matter of time before he reaches 10,000. I want this article to stay because of the obvious fact that he has had such a strong influence on the Terrywad genre by not just reviewing Terrywads, but also appearing in a good number of them. Justice ∞ (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

NB: The vote is now 5 to 4 for Keep. I move that we close this VfD. --Quasar (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)