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]
— 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]
— Lord Anorak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 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]
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]
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]
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.
More