This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.
When I saw this page was created the range of references was good to see but upon further inspection a large portion of them are either primary sources (like Tweets and LinkedIn) or interviews, these are usable (though LinkedIn is dubious imo) but do not constitute towards notability. Most of the remaining secondary, independent sources are brief mentions of the subject. I was going to immediately take this to AfD but given the editor's of page creations it might be better mention this on the talk page first. Spy-cicle💥 Talk?08:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spy-cicle: I understand your concern, but even without the primary sources, there are still 21 sources, most of which I believe are very good:
The Mary Sue: A situational source per WP:VG/RS, but a good article. Interviews are touchy when it comes to notability (per this essay), but I tend to believe that, if the reliable source is giving them attention, then it contributes to notability.
GameRevolution: A reliable source reporting on a panel Schatz was a part of, and mentioning her specifically.
Eurogamer, Gamasutra, and MCV/Develop: Reliable sources reporting on Schatz's accessibility work, and her promotion at Naughty Dog.
Fast Company: Seems reliable. The fact that she is included on their list of Most Creative People is definitely a factor in her notability.
GamesRadar+: Reliable source whose article topic is solely focused on Schatz and her work.
The New York Times: Reliable source from notable writers specifically about Schatz and her work (among a few others). Definitely meets WP:SIGCOV.
The Verge: Reliable source. Schatz is the primary interviewee.
Los Angeles Times: Reliable source per WP:RSP calling out Schatz's appearance at the Game Awards 2020 as a highlight of the show. Wouldn't fulfil WP:GNG on its own, but it helps.
Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences: Schatz isn't a significant part of the source itself, but being nominated for a D.I.C.E. Award is pretty big.
The other sources (specifically Max Level, Kotaku, 80 Level, Twitter, and LinkedIn, which is allowed for simple claims per WP:LINKEDIN) are only included to bolster the article with additional background information, not to demonstrate notability (the same thing exists at Neil Druckmann with podcast interviews and primary websites, for example). This certainly isn't the gold standard for notability, but I strongly believe that it effectively meets all of the general notability guidelines. – Rhain☔09:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You make some valid points, here's my assessment. Removing all primary sources, as you mentioned, that makes it 21 secondary sources. Removing all interviews from that so that only independent sources are remaining (as required by WP:GNG) leaves 16 sources. Of those 16 I do not think this wordpress blog [1] is reliable or at least not reliable enough constitute towards notability. Of those remaining 16 removing those that are passing mentions these are what is left: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. I am not familiar enough with the reliability of North Texan, 80.lv, or Wonder Women Tech. Most of the The New York Times coverage is taken up by quotes on the subject whilst the GamesRadar+ is pretty minimal. The remaining Fast Company (has a decent paragraph) and GameRevolution and The Verge are provide solid coverage as well. Though I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt here, admittedly this is pretty borderline so not too concerned either way. I am concerned of the number of times LinkedIn is used though, as in is there anyway to verify this is Schatz's own account, etc? Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk?14:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spy-cicle: I agree that it's pretty borderline, but I still think it's on the top end of borderline, which is why I published it. In regards to the sources you've mentioned: the WordPress blog isn't intended to demonstrate notability, but it is an effective source for the statement it's referencing; North Texan is the alumni magazine of Schatz's university, so it's trustworthy but not particularly notable; and the reliability of 80 Level and Wonder Women Tech is not yet proven, but they're not being used for notability anyway. As for LinkedIn: it's only being used to source her work history, and her profile has been endorsed by multiple colleagues (and is linked on MobyGames) so that's satisfactory verification for me. – Rhain☔00:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
