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. Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fine Young Capitalists[edit]

The Fine Young Capitalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A few users on the article's talk page have noted that this organization is not notable outside of the Gamergate controversy, and I agree. There is no information in any RS's to indicate that this organization is notable enough for its own page, and the current content in the article is very WP:COATRACK-y to the GamerGate discussion. Since the organization is already described in the existing GamerGate article, I think this article should be deleted. Hustlecat (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The article fails to demonstrate that the organisation has any significant notability independent of the GamerGate controversy, and is essentially a coatrack regurgitating material better covered elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - Cwobeel (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Article absolutely meets the general notability guideline, with 14 reliable sources. Similarly, OP making the argument that is essentially WP:BLP1E without the BLP bit does not affect policy. There is adequate sourcing for the article, and just because they've been embroidered in a controversy doesn't mean that they lose any of that notability. OP even admits this. 'Not notable outside of the Gamergate controversy'. They are notable, have met the GNG, and as such, meet the notability guideline. Full stop. There's no policy based deletion argument here. OP also makes an erroneous argument saying There is no information in any RS's to indicate that this organization is notable enough for its own page, and the current content in the article is very WP:COATRACK-y to the GamerGate discussion. They've met their due coverage verbosely in reliable sources in due quantity, and COATRACK is an essay which refers to tangentially related to content added to the pages. It has no due weight in a deletion debate. Due to them overtly meeting the GNG, the page should be kept full heartedly. I also don't see much rush to delete Zoe Quinn, who is presumably in the same category guideline wise as TFYC. In spite of BLP1E applying surely to their article as well, and appropriately; it is a biography. Tutelary (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Zoe Quinn article is in a different category as the majority of RS's state she is central to the conflict. That is not the case for the article in question, which per the RS's is tangential to the conflict. Hustlecat (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hustlecat (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Hustlecat (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hustlecat (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy based reason to delete other than the essay WP:COATRACK? As mentioned, it already easily meets the general notability guideline. With 14 reliable sources, it's kind of a mystery to me on why you think it isn't notable. Not exactly a mystery, just a bit confusing with no policy/guideline to backup the deletion request. Tutelary (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is information in the RS's that show the subject is notable separately from GamerGate, the article should be updated to reflect that. As it currently stands, it is not independently notable - per WP:INHERITORG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:AUD. I am suggesting deletion because this article's content overlaps heavily with the existing GamerGate one. Hustlecat (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be. There is no equivalent rule for BLP1E except with organizations. WP:ORGDEPTH, the guideline you just linked explicitly disagrees with you. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage has not been 'trivial' and has been independent and substantial. Again, 14 sources demonstrate notability for the topic and easily meets the guideline. WP:INHERITORG doesn't particularly apply because there wasn't any 'inheriting' going on. If you're trying to imply it's trying to inherit notability from GamerGate, this is untrue because TFYC themselves have been the subject of multiple independent and reliable sources, and per the guideline, makes it notable. Trying to say that 'Oh, they're only notable in the context of GamerGate' so they should be deleted isn't a valid reason to dismiss the 14 reliable sources already here. Finally, WP:AUD does not apply because it's received a good amount of coverage not from just local sources, but diverse sources so it does not apply. Tutelary (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just dug into the current references list a little more. In the case that the article is merged or remains up, they should be more closely scrutinized. A couple quick examples: the subject's own site is not an RS for their own notability. A couple of the gaming blogs listed should also be confirmed as RS's before their information is used as fact or proof of notability. I'm also not sure if CinemaBlend or The Mary Sue can be counted as RS's as I've seen discussion to the contrary here in the past. Either way there are definitely fewer than 14 RS's on this. Hustlecat (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete It's liable to be limited to a COATRACKing of the gamergate controversy article, but there are sources out there. I suspect that the majority of them are linked wholly or largely to GG and not really about TFYC by themselves. For evidence on what a cluster flock this can turn into if we're not willing to delete coatracked articles look at the federalist. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The group has absolutely no notability outside their involvement in the gamergate fiasco, and precious little even in that context. The article as it stands is a coatrack to polish the movement's image on an article with less scrutiny than Gamergate controversy. It fails WP:WEB's 'no inherited notability' clause, as it owes what notability it has entirely to gamergate, and fails the GNG in that it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Very few of the sources in the article are primarily about the subject as opposed to incidentally mentioning it in an article on another subject (i.e. Gamergate) and the few sources that it does have are quite weak in terms of reliability. -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The only reasonably reliable sources are ones that mention the subject only incidentally. Of the 'non-trivial' and 'independent' sources (that is, sources that are primarily about the subject and don't originate from the subject) we have: APGNation, an unreliable source, Gameindustry.biz, GamePolitics.com, and Gameranx.com, all minor gaming sites with questionable reliablility (only the first has even been deemed usable by the Wikiproject for Video Games, their stock in trade) and articles in Cinema Blend (by William Usher, an overt Gamergate supporter) and Vice that are primarily about the subject's relation to gamergate. There's no way this passes WP:WEB or the gng. The Keeps smack of WP:ILIKEIT. -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep per pre-GamerGate coverage in Gamesindustry.biz and GamePolitics. Additionally the coverage in Forbes, Reason, Cinema Blend several times, The Daily Dot, TechCrunch twice, Vice, The Mary Sue, Pocket Gamer, and The Verge, even if during GamerGate, all strongly point to this group meeting WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Mind you people are keeping out more detailed information on TFYC at the GamerGate article because they think the preceding sources are not sufficient to warrant extensive attention given the enormity of sources in the GamerGate article. The sources do more than warrant an independent article and there was no serious push for deletion during the entire time it was up for DYK or after it was on the front page of Wikipedia. The "coatrack" argument has no validity as this focuses as much as possible on only the details concerning TFYC.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-sourced, well-referenced article, that is educational and encyclopedic and helps inform our readers and editors, alike. :) — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. COATRACKing calls for trimming extraneous text, not deletion. Cut back on the material on TFYC in the GamerGate articles and keep a rein on the GamerGate information in this article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is notable ("significant" "reliable" "independent" "sources" cover it; no reason is shown to "presume" it is not suitable) as per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. While article content could use work to reduce GG related content and increase details of the company itself & its activities; it is not obviously or necessarily a WP:COATRACK, and deletion is NOT CLEANUP. - Ryk72 (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because it is notable as an independent "game jam" session from Gamergate, and also succeeds the WP:GNG Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think it has that coatrack appearance because the actual organization's management and its activities aren't covered in depth by the refs. This said, it meets the GNG for the sourcing from RS listed above, even if it means an article almost exclusively about Gamergate at this point. If a conversation is warranted on whether the article needs to exist outside its Gamergate article mention (which I take to be the intent of this nom), it should be saved for when we're processing the Gamergate retrospectives. But if it comes to that, it should be a talk page discussion and not an AfD, because we would still be redirecting this title and not killing the topic altogether. czar ♔, DYK reviewer 02:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNot notable, Wikipedia should not be used for fund-raising (crowd-sourcing) or as a credential; entry reads as it is, self promotional . --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is well sourced and referenced article. It seems notable enough to warrant an article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No established notability outside the Gamergate controversy. As TaraInDC says, the bulk of sources are actually about Gamergate and only mention this subject incidentally. Others are some combination of questionable, non-independent, or self-published. Anything valuable not already covered at Gamergate controversy can be merged there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The term is clearly related to the Gamergate controversy. Most of the delete !votes are explicit about this fact. Last I checked the article isn't defamatory or otherwise problematic. At 450+k GHITS it is abundantly clear that this is an important search term. At the bare minimum we should be looking at a merge or redirect. We're supposed to assist all readers, not selectively confound them. Straight deletion as !voted for by a number of voters above is nonsense. -Thibbs (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The notability of this subject cannot be extricated from its GamerGate ties. The only reason it received any press was because the group managed to capitalize off of people hating Zoe Quinn.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly meets GNG. Whether we need to make the article less about GG is a discussion for another day. KonveyorBelt 21:53, 5 November 2014 (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.