Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Sterling

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sterling

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

Insufficient verifiable material to write an accurate biographical article. TS 03:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Third-party sources only have to offer "significant coverage" of a subject, not coverage of all the subject's major aspects. These might be useful to establish notability: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (this one actually describes why he's notable rather than just talking about him) I suspect more about his life could be gotten from personal blogs that, while not third-party sources, would fill in the missing gaps. Tezero (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per sources provided by Tezero. There is apparently significant (enough) coverage of Sterling, and I suggest moving those references to the talk page (though I might try to incorporate some later today). Also, if we can have a (very decent quality) article on Zero Punctuation, we could definitely make a good article for Jim Stirling. ~Mable (chat) 07:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just added three of these references to the article. It doesn't look amazing, but it's sourced content. ~Mable (chat) 09:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is plenty to say about this guy and quite a bit that has been said about him. I think it is worthy. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I am sympathetic to the idea that some article topics that are notable don't have the sources to make really solid articles (BLPs for game dev personnel come to mind) I think there's enough to demonstrate notability as its own piece here, and I don't think there's a better place to fold that content elsewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seem to be sufficient RSes covering the topic to meet WP:GNG. If the article really can't progress beyond Start/Stub class then I'd perhaps be open to the idea of a merge in the future. -Thibbs (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Good hustle, for those who found sources. The Forbes, Complex paragraph, even TIGS refs look good, but with weak depth. I wouldn't use unvetted sites: gamingaswomen.com (interview) or Gamegrep (which is really a repackaged version of Sterling's own Destructoid article) for notability. Add Tez's Cinemablend and Ars links and we're closer, but Ars has little depth too and my understanding was that Cinemablend is not reliable (this is the only discussion on it). Withstanding all this, there's enough to write an article. czar ⨹ 17:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everybody who has worked to find sources. I'm very pleased to say that you have proven me wrong. The article should not be deleted in my opinion. --TS 12:34, 4 January 2015 (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.