Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PC Master Race

Add links
From 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. Even when mostly discounting SPAs, I do not find consensus to delete. There are good arguments for a merge but no consensus on a target, so this should probably be further discussed on the article's talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC Master Race

[edit]
PC Master Race (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)

Though the term is fairly widely used I can't find any reliable coverage of the term or its importance. There may be a place for discussing the benefits of PC gaming, but I don't think this is it. Sam Walton (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final note to Wikipedia It's September 9th now, and it appears that the article is a nearly complete replacement from what it was at the time of nomination. Someone generously went through and absolutely filled it with popular sources, which really helps out with the notability and such. Wikinium (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Wikipedia admins This page has changed since the nomination and continues to change each day. I'm going to work on stripping garbage out of it some more. A lot of this garbage is the reason so many people feel so negative towards it and want it deleted. Wikinium (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the PC Master Race started as satire it has become much more than that. It is a reliable source of information. PC gaming has been overshadowed during the last years based on misconceptions and false information. Unfortunately we, as PC gamers do not have large companies like Microsoft and Sony to spend millions on marketing and 'getting the word out'. This is a legitimate move that is aimed to fix this. Potential users/gamers can find information that will help them make more informed decisions. It has grown insanely popular and has provided information on the subject to a lot of new/potential users. Let's not be fooled by the satirical name, this is something serious an useful! Soupias (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Soupias (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— PhoenixGamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ideology is fairly new and therefor sources must be given a fair shake. Sources can not be expected to come from normally reputable places as the article is culture based and, again, fairly new. It fits just as well as any other ideology and has the following and devotion normally attributed with such. As well WP:NEO does not work with this entry as the reason for the entry's creation is to give overall consensuses to the view provided not to increase its' use. Lord_Anorak 10:55, 2 September 2014
— Lord Anorak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a neologism. I am officially in favor of keeping it, even if it means leaving up the citation and incomplete notice until all the correct sources are gathered. This term is real, this term is popularly used, and this term is notable. This is a brand new article, and it already has a very nice selection of sources (some of which arrived after the nomination for deletion). Give this article a chance to obtain sources and it'll be indisputably notable soon enough. As for the claim of it being a neologism, it most certainly isn't. This term is part of gaming pop culture and has been for several years. There are plenty of sources now in place that back this all up, and likely many more to come.Wikinium (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't give notability opinions anymore, but these sources are not used: Escapist (I can't remember; is this the blacklisted one, or is that The Guardian?), Kotaku, Pulp365. Tezero (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Escapist article is written by the guy who coined the term FYI. Sam Walton (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand if writing out the reasoning for each point in the ideology seems out of place - as maybe this isn't the place for justifying PC gaming. But I do believe that the term deserves a page. It's already used by - at the very least - hundreds of thousands, more likely millions. It doesn't need a page to increase use. But simply having a Wikipedia page rather than just "Know your meme" being in the Google results would, in my opinion, be an improvement. Teaearlgraycold (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading those, I can definitely see that this term/ideology is documented enough to have its own page. I understand the concerns and fear of vandalism, but I created this article in good faith. There are a lot of people out there who would love to see this article deleted due to disagreement, but if we can put one together that well-cited enough, it will be safe from vandalism via the opposing voices. This term is real, and it's everywhere. It's just not covered extremely well by reporters, Kutaku and a handful of others have written on it though (it appears). I vote against deletion, although there's a lot of unneeded stuff on the page right now (there's even an article on mods). Wikinium (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also want to further explain the article. It's not intended to be a neologism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#NEO. There are people that are generally curious about the term, and this article could help explain that right off the bat. Creating a small article about a term as massive as 'PC Master Race' really wouldn't even make a dent in its usage. This term is indeed popular (as seen by the 200k users of the subreddit alone). I hope this helps clarify for those who suspect it to be a neologism.Wikinium (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to... somewhere? I was going to say console wars but that seems to have been deleted. Maybe PC game? It deserves a section of a larger article at best. If you deign to give it its own article, internet mouthbreathers will make it balloon to a 300kb monstrosity of every instance of a PC game being better than a console version AND all the times they've been "screwed by the Man" with their PC ports. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I understand the concerns, if there are enough sources to back up the fact that this term, and/or group of people(the subreddit) are notable, I think it would be a neat article. If the use of the term is incorrect, maybe the article could be renamed to "PC gaming superiorority" or something similar. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the entire idea with neologisms. There of course will be sources that mention it, but if it is not widely adopted across the industry, it's a niche aspect. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is why I propose making the article not about the word itself, but the group of people it represents. Although, there would still have to be articles describing why they are notable as a group. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, at the Midwest Game Developers' Conference (I think that's what it was called?) this past summer, a speaker who'd worked on numerous notable games (like one of the Far Crys, IIRC) unironically used the phrase "PC master race" as an interjection. It was hard to sit still after that, but surely that shows something. Tezero (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a legitimate usage of a widespread term and it should be an article that is kept. 81.108.161.238 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Console players need to learn PC superiority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenofnine24 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Sevenofnine24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also a troll response. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick introductory note for the newcomers here: Console gaming is shitty compared to what PC gaming offers, but that does not automatically mean that a catchphrase related to the issue is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Articles on Wikipedia need to demonstrate notability and that they meet the project's scope; if you wish to convince the community here to keep this article, you will have to make your arguments and reasonings so that they specifically address Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, instead of simply spouting in-jokes. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Zeitgeist1911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— MajorDesync (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FYI: The above, along with assumed further keeps, originate from this reddit thread. Sam Walton (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Common term to describe an idology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.226.41 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - been thinking a while on this one, and I don't think there is enough coverage and usage of the term in independent and reliable sources for it to warrant an article. No doubt that the term is legitimate and that it is widely used within the community - but the question at hand is of its coverage in reliable and independent sources. Of the sources that actually cover the term 'PC Master Race', the majority are unreliable and self-published (Urban Dictionary, reddit, Know Your Meme, etc.). The most reputable sources provided that cover the term appear to be Kotaku, Pulp365, and The Escapist, which I don't think is enough to have an article. That being said, I think a mention of the topic on another article (such as PC game) and having a redirect there would be appropriate. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Those media outlets (as well as the many others that are being located and added to the page every day) are certainly enough to allow it to have its own page. There are lots of people out there who search for this exact term, curious as to its meaning. Merging it and burying it in a barely related article seems a bit over-the-top for a perfectly notable term/meme such as 'PC Master Race'. Lesser-notable terms and memes have their own pages, I just think that this one is more attractive to vandalism, censorship, and hatred due to its controversial nature. This page deserves to exist. Wikinium (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough on your analysis of sources - that's something editors will always analyze differently. However, I wouldn't call any merged content "buried". Assuming the article is merged and redirected, any content worth mentioning (ideally the term's definition and history) would still be wholly available, just not as an independent article. Regarding the existence of other articles, that's not really a good argument for the notability of this one - though I'm curious about what memes have pages out there that are less significant than PC Master Race. As for the article matter being prone to censorship and hatred, I can see the logic behind that, but I think that's definitely non-issue at the moment. I'm going to throw out there that I myself am big into PC gaming, and also frequent the respective subreddit which, if anything, has driven more support here than any 'gut instinct' arguments for deletion or merging based on the dislike of the subject. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to PC game#Contemporary_gaming or a new subsection on PC gaming culture. Not sure I'd go so far as to say it's a non-notable neologism, but the subject of discussion is clearly something related to PC gaming culture and not a phenomenon of an actual "PC Master Race" apart from PC gaming culture. Thus it should be merged in with other aspects of contemporary PC gaming culture. Furthermore, "PC Master Race" does not have significant coverage as a term on its own (per a WP:VG/RS search), so it would be impossible to write a full article on the topic: it does not warrant its own article. This is to say that WP is not a dictionary and this neologism has no coverage about rather than using the phrase. My condolences to the closer of this beast. czar ♔ 02:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. I'm saying I don't think it's non-notable enough to be deleted outright. It's a useful search term, but I think its main scope is PC gaming culture (under the PC game article) and not a separate "PC Master Race" article as a separate concept. I don't see any sources covering such a separate concept in depth. This is the closest I've found other than it being used as a phrase in headlines. The last sentence is a reference to NEO in NOTDIC, that neologisms aren't bad per se but the coverage needs to be about the term itself rather than a bunch of articles that use the term. (If it's the latter, all you can do is make a statement to the effect that "it's used", which is not enough to build an article around.) I don't see the contradiction czar ♔ 02:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: At its current state, the article doesn't seem like it can stand by itself. Some parts consist of original research, and the page overall needs work before it can meet article standards. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete as per above. The sourcing in this article is also very misleading as many of the cited sources in fact do not reference this term at all, such as [1], [2], [3], [4]. Additionally, [5] cites a comment on the article and not the article itself. There is definitely not enough - actual - coverage in RS to warrant an independent article. The AfD is also attracting a ton of SPAs/socks/meatpuppets whose comments do not give any legitimate, policy-based rationale for keeping and their !votes should therefore be discarded. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of those sources were put in due to someone saying certain points needed to be backed up, they were added as evidence to specific claims on the wiki page (such as Sony misleading gamers) but as the article has been condensed since they were added and some of the content had been removed, I agree that the sources themselves should probably be removed. Plokinub (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Question about merge/redirect Does anyone know if people searching on Google for the term will get what they're looking for if this redirects to a subsection of another article about PC gaming? My biggest concern is that the information will remain inaccessible to the majority of people who are trying to learn about it.Wikinium (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't really predict search engine results, but I'll say with confidence that, given time, the merging of 'PC Master Race' to another article will cause that article to appear for search results on 'PC Master Race'. Note that redirect pages themselves don't show up in search engine results. Regardless, SEO of our articles aren't really something we should be worried about for a deletion discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Czar; as amusing as it is, it does seem to not be notable enough for its own article. Ansh666 01:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO. Jucchan (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is widely accepted and has been noted by celebrities and well known people quite a bit in the past year. There should be a section added that shows some of the famous people that have referred to it. (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cleanup on opinions and all, but it seems notable enough to me. It's both a neologism and an ideology, while we don't cover the former we do cover the latter. (We also cover notable memes) ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 22:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, somewhat reluctantly because of the negative associations with Master Race and Nazism, but the term has become "ubiquitous" in the computer gaming community by many well-sourced accounts such as here and here and here and here. It started as a quasi-satirical joke in 2008 and caught on BIGTIME in the computer gaming world -- for example, there are 6000+ pageviews on this Wikipedia article alone. What has been happening is that mainstream computer gaming writers tend to avoid the term (so there are fewer references than one might think in respectable publications), although there are so many mentions of the terms by gamers, posting anonymously on blogs, that suggest the term is well past the neologism stage, and that there is no risk that Wikipedia, by posting this article, will commit original research by foisting the term on the public; rather, the term was first foisted (sorry couldn't resist) by Croshaw. Further, the article has been 'edited' by numerous first-time Wikipedia contributors, who don't understand rules about sourcing, neutrality, who play rather lame jokes such as redirecting someone who clicks on video game console to potato, and so forth. The article now is in rather good shape but I expect that further neophytes will muck it up, so if the page could be blocked for a bit would be a good idea (until the deletion debate subsides), or signs posted inside the article advising users not to add junk. So, a reluctant keep, although it is my personal hope that gamers might find a less offensive way of describing themselves and their battles over platform superiority.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether the term is a neologism but whether there is enough coverage about the neologism as an idea that would justify its own article. For a more accurate page count, see the views here. The four links mentioned above are a forum (unreliable source) and three mentions. There is no actual significant coverage of what a PC Master Race is apart from its role in PC gaming culture, which is worth perhaps one or two sentences in such an article on gaming culture given the current sourcing or else be weighted unduly. czar ♔ 16:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is extended discussion of the concept here in Escapist magazine which is a reliable source, even if it was by the term's coiner, written because he's responding to the term's (unfortunate, in my view) popularity. The term is making its way (slowly) into mainstream media such as Forbes magazine here and the New York Daily News here, and I think it is evident why the term, given its dark associations with Nazism (I recently did a lecture course on pre-WW2 Germany), has been reluctantly touched on by mainstream publications. The pageview statistics, 6000+ on one day, and getting 8651 views over five days again suggests the term is notable, even if pageview counts of course is not an official test of notability. We can think of pageview numbers in another way: there are 8000+ readers who are curious enough to click on the page, who want to know more about the concept, what it means, perhaps battling whether the PC platform is better than the console platform, who will be either (1) upset that the article gets deleted or (2) will work towards restoring it if deleted. While I'm not a big fan of pop culture here in Wikipedia, I've learned to shrug my shoulders, accept it, and at least try to cover it adequately when we can rather than try to disinfect Wikipedia with the ole' cleansing option.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Escapist piece is written by the person who coined the term, it does not help establish the subject's notability. The Forbes article is misleading because it is written by one of some 1500 Forbes "contributors" making it little better than a blog (that it is written by someone who could be considered a video game journalist makes this source debatable however). The third source is merely a mention; it does not contain any real sourceable content. Sam Walton (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the Escapist piece was coiner-written but that does not undermine the credibility for me since it was clear that Croshaw was trying to explain the term's popularity, and for him to comment on how the term's usage has changed over time, from barb directed at 'elitist' PC gamers into a general term of superiority by all PC gamers. Further, the article is further referenced by the 2008 video-review by Croshaw. It makes sense. A quick test: do you believe the article? I do. It is not phony-baloney. Further, Forbes contributor Paul Tassi is not just some blog writer, but he knows enough about gaming to have been trusted by Forbes' publishers to have his thinking published in a mainstream business magazine; after all, there are 35+ articles in Wikipedia using Tassi as a reference; why would you choose to discount one Forbes-Tassi reference when he is accepted as a trusted reference in 35 other Wikipedia articles? It is all legit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This logic is very confused. No one said the term (the neologism) is not in wide use. The question is whether there is enough discussion about the idea to which the term refers to substantiate its own article. All of the mentions you just described other than the source that actually coined the term do not go into depth about the phenomenon of a "PC Master Race" other than mentioning the term. This is because "PC Master Race" is actually about PC gaming culture, which would be the article topic anyway, if there were even enough sources to substantiate a full article on that topic. Since there are not, it makes sense to cover both PC gaming culture and the PC Master Race (as merged) in the topic on PC gaming. czar ♔ 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources such as this one plus a prominent discussion in a Spanish-language gaming magazine here and also here and here and here and here plus there's a Facebook page with almost 12,000 likes -- again suggesting major interest in this subject. Many magazines using "PC Master Race" in the title of the article, as if the magazine's editors know that this phrase will attract readers interested in the PC-vs-console debate. It is discussed prominently in the influential gaming blog named Kotaku and in know your meme website. There is so much coverage in forums that it is sometimes difficult to find the good sources; I used the "-forums" addition into the browser bar and found this was helpful while searching. And while PC Master Race is part of PC gaming culture, the term, in itself, has a history and a story, and is encyclopedic in its own right, as numerous references show. See, a reader wanting to know what PC Master Race means, or a journalist, and they type that into their browser, if they get redirected to PC Gaming culture, they'll be confused -- they will want to know, what does the term mean, so I do not think a redirect is a wise choice here. Another thing: there is a counter-culture aspect going on here, as if the term with its Nazi associations is deliberately used with kind of a wink, so that users know they will not be covered much in the popular press, kind of like flying under the radar, but this is my POV. Still, I believe it is a disservice to Wikipedia's readers not to cover this topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those links show that the term is in use, not that there is a discussion around the term. I could source by source but suffice it to say that no one is discussing the cultural concept of a PC Master Race—they are just using the phrase in their headline slugs and telling readers how to build their own PCs. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not based on how many Facebook likes something has or even how many zillion times it's mentioned anywhere but on the depth of reliable sources, which is to say that if a term is used a zillion times it doesn't matter at all unless there are reliable sources we can use to actually write an article about it. Everything pointed to above does not provide that depth of coverage. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't cover things just because people want to know about the term (which, to be honest, isn't even being argued, because the term is going to be referenced within the PC game article anyway...) Nothing else I can say here without repeating the policies again czar ♔ 19:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources do discuss the term prominently--its origin, how it evolved, what it means--so I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What independent source has discussed the term's origin, evolution, or meaning for more than a single sentence (a passing mention)? I looked through all the sources and I don't remember seeing a single one, but I'm happy to be proven wrong czar ♔ 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here and here and here and to a lesser extent here. Further, the WP:BASIC rule says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources (in the article) may be combined to demonstrate notability so the other references can be combined to further establish notability. Just for the record, it is my personal POV that the term is inaccurate since there is only one true Master Race.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 9 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PC_Master_Race&oldid=1138195880"