Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (3rd nomination)


 * 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 keep. - Bobet 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew_Gower

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was deleted previously (on the 1st nomination) on the basis of being non-notable. (In the interest of openness, I should mention I made that 1st nomination) It was subsequently recreated. Somebody else almost immediately nominated it for deletion a 2nd time, but the discussion seemed to focus more on if Andrew actually helped make RuneScape or not (which he did), and the nomination failed. This is therefore the 3rd nomination.

I am nominating this article for deletion, as it appears to be original research (see WP:OR), and also because I believe according to wikipedia guidelines it is 'not notable' (see WP:BIO)

Justification: With regards to the 'notability' part I don't dispute that this person helped make RuneScape which is a significant game. However reading WP-BIO it seems clear that whether something is notable enough to appear in wikipedia is more based on whether other reputable publications deemed the person notable (by writing about them). In particular read the primary criterion of WP:BIO. I believe the reason for this is because that then determines if sufficient reliable information is available about a given person to actually write the article. (without original research)

Unfortunately there is lack of solid 3rd party articles about this person. As such this page has ended up COMPLETELY unsourced, (original research). This in turn means it contains numerous factual innacuracies, and a bizarre mix of trivia as a result. It's certainly not a good biography. I can't see any verifiable facts that aren't already on the jagex article. It doesn't actually cover the key points of the persons life. (just a weird mix of things he did at 17)

I should mention that I am aware that there are articles that mention this person *in passing*, but those are articles are about Jagex or RuneScape, (which already have pages), not actually about this person. I.e they aren't biographical articles. The ONLY article I can find at all which is actually about the person (as opposed to Jagex) is the very brief paragraph in the sunday times, but that is referenced on the Jagex page anyway, and doesn't contain enough info to actually make a wikipedia page.

I therefore propose this article is redirected to Jagex, as all the verifiable facts (and their sources), are already listed on there anyway. Runefire 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S: Since first posting, I have reworded the above slightly, to repeat itself less, and hopefully be clearer. I have removed the comment about vandalism, as you are right that's not relevant. I hope that's allowed. Thanks


 * Keep per reliable sources presented at Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (2nd nomination), the fact that being the creator of RuneScape does contribute to his notability (see 'Creative professionals' in WP:BIO), and that being a target for vandalism is not a reason for deletion. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to the above. I did read the entire 2nd nomination, and check every one of the sources. But as I originally stated they didn't actually seem to be about the person, and so didn't really provide facts to base the article on. (I.e they weren't biographical - With the exception of the sunday times one I already mentioned.) You mention WO:BIO#Special Cases. But the very first sentance of that section reads "The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person". Obviously that isn't the case here. I was actually originally just going to strip out the info that wasn't verifiable, but then I realized that's the entire article. Hence the AFD instead. Thanks Runefire 18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The standard is that it be attributable, not attributed.  The fact that the article is unreferenced will hopefully be fixed someday. Given who this guy is, I assume sources exist somewhere. The fact that they are not there yet is not a justification to delete the article.   (If you see mistakes, correct them.)  semper fictilis 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources about Gower: Guardian, December 11, 2003, Pg. 19; Western Mail,March 25, 2006, Pg. 18; Independent,July 17, 2006, Pg. 14. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Semperf (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Keep. I have no idea how you're not seeing statements that aren't on the Jagex article. This discusses programs he created AT THE BEGINNING and BEFORE Jagex was created. Destruction Imminent was not mentioned on the Jagex article. Andrews original plans for DeviousMUD are not stated in the Jagex or RuneScape article. Of course DeviousMUD is vaguely stated in the RuneScape article, but not in detail. This article is technically about the man who created RuneSCape, because not much is known about him. I created this article as a hope of informing others about this very interesting man. You have to understand that the sources were originally here when I first wrote this article. It was Andrews personal site-- where I got everything I stated in this article. It was later removed from archive.orgs database... which is why there are no sources, and likely to never be any sources again. Like I said, I'm just trying to inform people about a man who could be considered interesting, and outstanding in programming. This article is basically the only information left about the man, seeing as his site was blocked on archive.org. I ask that you keep this article, for historical purposes. ~ rih29 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable and Im sure sources can be found to back this up - • The Giant Puffin •  08:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete precicely as notable as the other founders of Jagex, who have no articles about them. Also, Comment: most of the content in this article is the sort of stuff that could be said about 25% of all computer science graduates. If it is to be kept, then it should stripped down to those things that are both encyclopedic and actually unusual, which at the moment would be only the first paragraph. -- Whitepaw 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Desperately needs references, but Andrew is too important IMO to not have a page on Wikipedia. I suggest the article is kept and a tag or similar is added. Twipie 05:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. References were provided in the prior deletion debate, I'm not sure why they weren't incorporated in the article, did someone remove them?  RFerreira 03:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:CaptainVindaloo|CaptainVindaloo and the reference provided in the previous deletion debate, which I have added to the article as external links. -- Black Falcon 07:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A big mistake and a lost to Wikipedia if this page is deleted.  OhanaUnited   13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.