Talk:European Speedrunner Assembly

Multiple issues

This is not ready to move live, so I declined a speedy deletion of the existing redirect in article space. There is a lot of use of forums, which are not reliable sources, and there is improper synthesis. For example, "Discussions regarding the name were debated heavily in a short space of time. Several community members suggesting EGDQ, fulfilling the European equivalent of already established, Games Done Quick, which also originated from members of the Speed Demos Archive community" is sourced to a Wired article that doesn't mention this organisation. If this were pared down to secondary independent reliable sources that directly discuss the European Speedrunner Assembly then I'm not sure much would be left. Fences&Windows 01:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So, to understand this correctly regarding the example you gave - sources that share information relevant to the cited sentence in an article are not acceptable as long as they don't also mention the title of the article? Or, is that entire sentence simply irrelevant, regardless of the citation confirming what was stated ("says event organizer Mike Uyama, who runs Awesome Games Done Quick under the banner of his website Speed Demos Archive[1])? Or is it a matter of the cite not being specific enough for the statement, meaning a source like this[2] would solve the issue?

Regarding reliable sources and forums; a lot of gaming related content is created on internet forums, having easy to track sources. Combined with archived links, confirming the source closer to when it was published, shouldn't this be reliable? What else could be more reliable sourcing for history originating from an internet forum than the original forum threads themselves, backed by archived versions? I am aware that what you state is correct, but I did understand it that debates or opinions from forums were the issue, not archived history relevant to the topic. Is the issue simply that it is primary? Can it be used to support independent articles/sources to get the facts more precise? I also want to know whether sourcing the original trackers for donation totals is deemed reliable or not, as it is, in a way, a primary source (that can not always be backed up by an article not "estimating" or "rounding" the sum, which articles tend to do).

I am, as the original creator of the article, indeed a follower of the marathons this organisation hosts, and I had not come across the Fancruft wiki-page before. For this I can only apologize. I did try to write everything short and to the point as well as only stating the original claims without putting perspective on what had been said and by who. "This event was, however, likely cancelled due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic" is a sentence that I can, in hindsight, agree is a conclusion from my part and should be removed from the article. "... it was indicated that some partnership between the two organisations would continue" is also something I can agree is based on conclusions rather than facts and should possibly be rewritten or edited out. I definitely believe that this article needs to be reviewed and edited by other writers, as I do agree that it is difficult for someone following the topic closely to always find the line for what is relevant or not to include in an article like this.

I do, however, not understand why the article is listed to potentially "not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations". The events are followed by hundreds of thousands of viewers, tops the watch time charts when it is live and ESA is relatively well documented by independent traditional media and other sources tied to the general gaming community. The subject was also previously listed as an "article for creation" on the redirect page (which is why I started on the draft to begin with) and has nothing to do with what is said on speedrun besides hosting content related to it.

Now, I do apologize if I come across as ignorant with this reply - that is not my intention. I simply try to understand and learn to improve future edits on English Wikipedia. I have clearly failed to understand all the policies. Forscha (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, other major editor of the page. I'm in agreeance that the article is far from ready. I've removed a lot of stuff that's been sourced to primary sources.

The issue with the Vice article is that it looks like it was supporting the statement "Several community members suggesting EGDQ, fulfilling the European equivalent of already established, Games Done Quick, which also originated from members of the Speed Demos Archive community." when all it supports is "Games Done Quick[...]originated from members of the Speed Demos Archive community." There is zero mention of any connection between ESA and GDQ/SDA, hence why it is a bad/weak source and considered synthesis/original research. This article would probably be a better source for establishing a connection, as it directly mentions ESA and GDQ, their relationship, and is a secondary independent reliable source, though the connection is only briefly mentioned and there lacks depth.

Notability is established by coverage by secondary (third party) reliable (reputable for fact checking) independent sources. Forums are considered to be primary (first person) connected and user generated sources, and user generated sources are automatically considered to be unreliable due to the lack of fact checking safeguards (though I believe there's exceptions for subject-matter experts). Games Done Quick has had books and articles by people unconnected to the event written about them, their history and their events. The independent traditional media items ye mention are what establish notability, provided they're indepth. Hence why I've been suggesting covering more about the events, which is where the coverage lays and establishes notability CiphriusKane (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the issues with the article and find reliable secondary sources. Sadly it seems that secondary documentation of ESA's history is virtually non-existent, with at best 3 secondary sources, none of which go into the history in any depth, and I'm unsure if the Destructoid article is actually of any use. Part of the problem is searching for "ESA" brings up stuff about the European Space Agency, Entertainment Software Association and Employment and Support Allowance. Searching for ludendi brings up a Scottish football club or a German frisbee club. There may be sources in Swedish though. The article's notability really rests in the events and runs, such as BTRL, as that is where the extensive coverage lies from what I can see CiphriusKane (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ping Zxcvbnm and Forscha. I've finished a further edit after CiphriusKane's very welcome efforts to cut down the article to a manageable form. Forum sources, excessive detail, and improper synthesis are gone and there's now about a dozen secondary sources in various languages, supported by primary sources for specifics of the events in the tables. I think it reads much better now and it's still more detailed than the equivalent articles in Swedish and Italian. I'd say it's ready to approve. Fences&Windows 20:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  Ping Hatchens too. Fences&Windows 20:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  Fences and windows, the article now looks pretty much improved. There is a question/suggestion.. do we have a subject-based/theme-based WP:RSP list to support pages like this one? If no, then we should create such a list under each wikiproject. - Hatchens (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Hatchens Ye mean something like Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#See_also? CiphriusKane (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  CiphriusKane, yes. exactly. - Hatchens (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Destructoid is marginal, depends on the author. Fences&Windows 09:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Fences and windows, you are the savior. this kind of list helps a lot. - Hatchens (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)