Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry Video Game Nerd 2

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 Speedy delete as reposted deleted material. This comes up on DRV under the name "Angry Nintendo Nerd" every couple of weeks or so, never with any convincing reason to undelete and always with a unanimous consensus to keep it deleted. There is no reason to go through this again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Video Game Nerd

Angry Video Game Nerd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

The original article on this subject Angry Nintendo Nerd was deleted after an AfD. The Angry Video Game Nerd article was originally protected to prevent it being used to recreate Angry Nintendo Nerd. After AVGN was unprotected it was recreated on January 16 covering the material from the original ANN article, despite there being no deletion review to overturn the original AfD. So technically this article could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD:G4. However I'd rather open discussion to the community. There is a claim of notability, but the only reliable source cited is a brief mention of one of James Rolfe's online reviews being shown in the background of an MTV report on internet celebrities. This doesn't seem to reach the requirements of WP:BIO, so I believe unless further sources can be found this article should be deleted and salted to prevent further recreation as the subject is not notable and the article is not properly verifiable. Gwernol 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a repost. Still no coverage of this fellow by reliable sources. Make the namespace a protected redirect to Angry Nintendo Nerd. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This person is probably the only thing on this planet mentioned in nine other languages including German [1], Japanese [2], Swedish [3], Dutch [4], French [5], and Hebrew [6] and still not be considered worthy enough to be on here.

He's been translated into Spanish[7] and Portugese[8].

He was even mentioned on MTV (youtube link is down) and Poland's largest gaming magazine [9]. You guys have to be doing this out of pure arrogant spite. Richard Cane 11:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Still fails WP:BIO--Dacium 11:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How about explaining how it fails using more than three words. Seriously, this amounts to saying "me no like". That has been good enough in the past but maybe try explaining how it fails for those of us who actually need things to be explained.Richard Cane 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Etiquette

• Don't ignore questions.

I asked a whole bunch of questions the people on here couldn't be bothered to answer so perhaps if you want to, you know, follow the rules of Wikipedia for once, you could answer them so this won't keep being brought up. Richard Cane 11:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO defines what kind of notability a person has to meet to warrant a Wikipedia article. What exactly has this person done that makes him qualify to be notable according to this guideline? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 11:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting really sick of repeating myself so just click and read the discussion here and explain how countless millions knowing about this guy doesn't make him notable. Everyone just says he isn't without explaining why those millions aren't good enough. WHO OR WHAT needs to mention him to make him good enough for people like you?

I'll quote a message JzG left on your talk page: As to sourcing etc., lists of Google hits don't amount to a hill of beans. What we need is evidence that this has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Articles in the tech press describing the site, stories in the newspapers about it, books which cover it in detail, that kind of thing. So has it been talked about in detail in notable printed publications? Have sites like Wired News or IGN covered it? For these topics, those are the kind of reliable sources we're looking for. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 12:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight.

If people from many different countries who speak nine different languages have noticed something it still isn't notable because IGN hasn't written an article about it?

If millions on youtube have been watching him, and Alexa confirms those millions, that isn't verifiable because they aren't "independent of the subject". What entity has taken control of Alexa and youtube to make them biased in favor of this character? Richard Cane 12:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MTV isn't enough obviously. This site is run by elitist, jealous idiots. 216.37.86.10 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, if I didn't know better, I'd accuse the Wikipedia elitist society of taking kickbacks from IGN or Wired News or CNN. What does this guy have to do to get an article, shoot the president? He's been listed on legitimate media outlets, the people clearly want an article. So why is all this even an issue? PlayItBogart 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just pure jealousy, plain and simple.216.37.86.10 13:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't go that far. I have a follow-up question: Where in the heck would IGN cover the nerd, anyway? He's not doing anything with any current consoles, so why would they care? PlayItBogart 13:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to realize his notoriety wouldn't have come about without the advent of youtube which is an extremely recent technology. His popularity is due to people voluntarily viewing him and those people are the ones who give him all the things that are necessary for him to be on here. He doesn't need Wired News or IGN. Richard Cane 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to explain what's happening in detail because I think you people are really confused about all this newfangled technology.

Remember in the old days when people needed things to be mentioned in books, newspapers, and television for it to be famous?

Nowadays, we have this magical invention called the Internet. Through this amazing advancement in technology we can quantify something's popularity without the need of publications telling us something is famous, because we already know!

Have you heard of blogs? Notice how new they are and how they don't rely on the media to obtain information? That's the age we're living in.

Now, five years from now, gramps, you're going to look pretty silly when you look back at yourself insisting that something wasn't notable because a publication didn't make it official when millions upon millions already knew about it because they realized things had changed when you didn't. Richard Cane 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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.