Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Nanney

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Nanney

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not my field, but the references look� either thoroughly unreliable or irrelevant to notability DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as appears to not meet
    computer 22:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Nintendo Enthusiast is not a reliable source. And we judge whether eSports individuals receive their own articles by the subject's depth of coverage in reliable, secondary sources (e.g.,
WP:VG/RS). We'll need to see more of that to justify keeping the article, else there will be no sources with which to write. If they're important, there should be plenty of source material. czar 02:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nintendo Enthusiast may not be included on the reliable video game sources list, but it's not included on the unreliable sources list either. In general it seems like the WP:VG/RS does not seem to accommodate esports/competitive gaming very well for whatever reason.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be on the list—it's a patently unreliable blog with no hallmarks of editorial quality. I would have thought that you've been around long enough to see that (and I don't see how you could argue otherwise...) VG/RS has no issues with eSports/competitive gaming—niche blogs by passionate users do not pass for reliable sources on WP whether or not they pass through the VGRS talk page. czar 04:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User was canvassed. Passing mentions (plain hits) are not the same as in-depth coverage. czar 04:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's going on here but I definitely wasn't canvassed into the discussion. I've been a regular contributor to this article but I was just a bit tired of dealing with AFDs so so I held off until Valoem asked me to comment.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✈ 08:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
08:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion, and is a limited posting with transparency. As noted Kevin Nanney has significant coverage in this reliable source Red Bull and Daily Dot, and Indy Week. Valoem talk contrib 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:10, 13 October 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.