Talk:Michael Swaim

Consortium9 video game

As I've mentioned in the article, Swaim took on a role with a video game development team in early 2022. He mentioned this in an IGN podcast, at which point he gave a few details about the game he was working on but didn't name the game or the developer.

Swaim's Linkedin profile and attached resume provides the names. Swaim was a Senior Writer at Consortium9 from March 2022 until August 2023, during which time he worked on two games - NOR and Faster.

I haven't found much information about either of these games, but according to some comments I've seen from Swaim on Discord, Consortium9 closed down, and neither game was ever released.

I haven't found anything that I could use as a reference in this article for the cancelation of these games. I'm pretty sure Swaim's Linkedin could be considered an acceptable primary source for the names of the developer and the games. But I'm not really sure how to best work this information into the article right now, so I'm just making a note of this for my own benefit. Perhaps I'll circle back around to this at some point. Jpcase (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've browsed through some of the social media pages for Consortium9 and learned a little more. NOR and Faster aren't separate games. NOR is an MMO game that is described as a "platform" having several games within it. Faster is one of those games. And Faster actually was released through Steam on December 22, 2023. But then Consortium9 folded right around that same time. --Jpcase (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

The article subject's Twitter/Patreon are not reliable sources for information. If something has not been reported on through a reliable source, it is likely not notable enough to merit inclusion in this article (see WP:NOR). Vegantics (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I have gone through and done my best to remove all traces of WP:PRIMARY source WP:REFDUMPing. Unfortunately, I believe this article would honestly benefit from a complete WP:TNT. 11WB (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively at the article's AfD, but I feel that I should add a brief comment here as well noting that Wikipedia policy very clearly allows the use of self-published sources. WP:NOR is an improper policy to cite here. There is a difference between original research, which is not allowed, and self-published sources, which are allowed. There have been valid concerns raised about the number of self-published sources that I initially added to this article, and so I'll cut down on them, but it is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy to state that self-published sources cannot be considered reliable and acceptable for use on Wikipedia. --Jpcase (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree NOR is not applicable here. The sources do verify the information, they just aren't the preferred sources to use. 11WB (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Possible "Works of" spin-off article

Way back when I first created this article, I had considered the possibility of creating a spin-off List article that could compile all of Swaim's body of work. Something akin to a "Michael Swaim filmography" or "Michael Swaim bibliography" style article. But because Swaim's body of work is so diffuse - spread across internet videos, podcasts, books, video games, a feature film, etc. - it would probably make most sense to title such a list something along the lines of "Works of Michael Swaim" or "List of works by Michael Swaim".

The vast majority of primary sources currently used in this article are used solely to verify each of Swaim's individual credits throughout his career. There should be nothing controversial about using primary sources in this way. His body of work as a whole has received significant coverage, but the nature of podcasts / internet content is such that some of the finer details, like the exact premiere date / end date of a series, or people who collaborated on a project with Swaim, often requires primary sourcing to verify. In some instances, this may require using two or more primary sources for a single credit - one to describe the premise of the work, one for the premiere date, one for how long it ran if it was a series, etc. Again, there should be nothing controversial about using primary sources in this way - the issue is that Swaim has so many distinct, individual credits that it results in the massive number of primary sources that some have raised concerns about.

A spin-off list article would still require lots of primary sources - but I'm wondering if it would be more broadly acceptable to others for those primary sources to be used so long as they are largely concentrated within a table listing Swaim's works, contained in a separate List article. Jpcase (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Your idea for a list is admirable, unfortunately an article list based entirely on primary sources has zero merit for existing. If you want to go ahead with the idea, that would be entirely on you, however it would almost certainly be nominated to AfD and likely end up being deleted. If that were to happen the deleted content would then not be able to return to this article, as that would go against consensus. The best solution here is to simply trim out the primary sources from this article, and use sources that can actually demonstrate notability. 11WB (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

11WB There is no established consensus against using primary sources in this article beyond the opinions of yourself and a single other editor.

If I go ahead with a list article it would not be "based entirely on primary sources". Some of the secondary sources currently used in this article could also be used in a potential list article. If those secondary sources are sufficient to establish notability for Swaim as a person, then they would likely be considered sufficient to establish notability for a list of Swaim's work (I realize we may disagree over whether the available sources do establish notability).

Once notability for a List has been established, "the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable", as is explained at WP:NLIST. So I maintain that using a large number of primary sources to verify individual credits within a list is policy compliant, so long as the list itself is considered notable. It's fairly common practice on Wikipedia to establish the notability of a list with a small handful of secondary sources and to then fill out the list's details with a much larger quantity of primary sources - see List of The Office (American TV series) characters as an example. Jpcase (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but these discussions are starting to wear me down. I am going to walk away. I will withdraw the AfD and close it as keep. You are then free to do whatever you feel is necessary with the articles. I've tried to explain the problems with the articles, but we clearly are not going to reach an understanding. I wish you the best of luck with your endeavours. 11WB (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Penticton Herald

Just found this article from the Penticton Herald, which I hadn't seen before.

It's a pretty brief mention in a pretty small newspaper, so I'm not sure if I'm going to bother adding it as a source here but wanted make a note of it just in case I decide to use it in some way later on. Jpcase (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)