Talk:Video Game History Foundation

Merge Frank Cifaldi into Video Game History Foundation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus not to merge Frank Cifaldi into Video Game History Foundation. The arguments of the oppose side, which outnumbers the support side, centre around the existence of independent coverage, in itself necessary but not sufficient for having an independent article, but also the existence of sourced material that would be unsuitable for the merger target. Since these are relevant points aligned with policy, I see no reason to discount any of these !votes.

---

I am proposing merging Frank Cifaldi into Video Game History Foundation. The sources about Cifaldi are in regards to his preservation and history research efforts, which was all just building up to him founding the Foundation. It serves better to discuss that stuff in the Background section of the Foundation article than a separate article. The merged version adds the Cifaldi article info to the first paragraph of Background. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight: Frank Cifaldi was a journalist, a podcast host, a game developer, and a preservation activist with coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet our notability threshold before he founded the VGHF, and your argument is that he has no independent notability outside of the VGHF? Indrian (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  You write that like I'm being completely unreasonable. The article is one paragraph. His professional contributions that are discussed by reliable sources are all in regards to his history research and preservation efforts, which is just now the Foundation in an official capacity. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 23:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  I speak from legitimate confusion because I don’t see how your argument jives with our notability policy. Trying not to pick too outlandish an example here, but take Walter White for instance. His notability is exclusively tied up in actions taken as head of the NAACP for many, many years. Would your argument be that he have no article and only be mentioned in the context of his NAACP work?

Or to keep it a little closer to home, how do you distinguish Cifaldi from Leigh Alexander, who gained general notoriety as part of the whole GamerGate mess but otherwise has similar credentials to Cifaldi as a journalist? Should she be redirected to our GamerGate coverage? Indrian (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. I can see where the merge request is coming from and am essentially neutral to the concern generally, but I still don’t see how this is different from many other people on Wikipedia that have been deemed notable despite being tied in coverage to a single act or organization. I am not making an “other stuff exists” argument because I think these other examples are worthy of inclusion. I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why Cifaldi is different, but my mind could change. Indrian (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe he clearly has notability, with SIGCOV in various sources. Some of the citations for his article are trivial mentions, but the New Yorker and Game Informer articles go heavily into him as a person, not just the Video Game History Foundation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, There is more to his notability than just the Video Game History foundation. I know because i actually own the gameinformer that talks about him so i can vouch for ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) Blitzfan51 (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. He was notable before VGHF and will be notable after (hopefully a long time from now). The shortness of this article is due to lack of effort, not lack of notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I did a look in the CSE and Tarkus is correct when he says that the vast majority of coverage surrounding Cifaldi relates to his work with VGHF rather than his work as a journalist. While it's likely that there is potential for a standalone article, I think merging for now is the best call. (As an aside, I will note that Zxcvbnm and Axem haven't provided any sources proving he was notable beforehand—if they exist, I'd like to see them, because it may change my mind.) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. He's probably notable, but this is a pretty weak effort to prove a BLP needs a stand-alone article. More of a "this ain't it, but keep trying" stance I suppose? Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Cifaldi might have plenty of irons in the fire besides the foundation, but the reliable source coverage is entirely focused on the foundation. Makes much more sense to merge the content here since there's not enough sources to actual make any meaningful article on the guy alone with any sustained coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The subject was notable prior to the creation of the VGHF. Coverage of the foundation easily eclipses the coverage of him as an individual but that doesn't change the fact that he was a figure in video games and games preservation prior to the VGHF. So let's talk sources: The NYer covers his career, including prior to the VGHF, including details not relevant to the VGHF article. Polygon[1][2] has covered his work with Digital Eclipse. And I'd add this little Wired blurb as a cherry on top. Altogether it's more than enough to sustain an article that does justice to the topic without delving into original research . czar 23:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.