Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer)


 * 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, no consensus. 1ne 21:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dave Gilbert (game designer)
See User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. This was previously nominated (Articles for deletion/Dave Gilbert (game designer) 1) and received three delete votes in addition to the nomination and one keep vote. I am relisting to get a clear consensus. Specifically, this article fails WP:BIO. Andre (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote. As I have already provided the sources in the first AfD, I see no point in keeping this open. Please take this to WP:DRV. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  16:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You must allow the sources to be discussed in the AfD process. That is its purpose, not to just have an administrator judge the worthiness of an article and close discussions. As it happens, I contend that your sources support the notability of The Shivah, not of Mr. Gilbert. Therefore it would be reasonable to generate a consensus of delete or redirect. This relisted AfD is certainly valid. Andre (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kindly take this to DRV. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why, exactly, would DRV be a better forum for this discussion? I'm not asking for a reinterpretation of your decision, nor am I raising a "concern" about it. It was handled incorrectly and therefore I am relisting it so we can handle it properly. Andre (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This will be handled by *professionals* on DRV. I see no point in continuing here. You did not care to check the verifiability of the article. This person has been mentioned in *many* reliable sources apart from the ones I have provided in the first AfD. The reliable sources include ones from BBC, CNN, Reuters and others. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you mean by "*professionals*". I'm an administrator just like you or them, and I can close deletions same as you or them. Wikipedia does not have "*professionals*" or special users with added judgmental power. At any rate, regarding your argument (which, being as you are participating in the argument, should really exempt you from closing the argument), Mr. Gilbert himself is not the primary subject of any of the sources you cited (The Shivah was, and Gilbert was merely mentioned in connection with that), and WP:BIO states that "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" is a requirement. Andre (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the *professional* part was rather a joke. However, if you feel that I did not close it nicely, this discussion would be better suited on WP:DRV. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 99% of comedy is timing, and this is really not a very amusing time for a joke. Anyway, a relisting of this deletion would benefit the process, and there's really no reason why we shouldn't just run the AfD again. WP:DRV exists to serve certain purposes that may be similar to this, but it is not unusual or inappropriate to just relist a deletion to build a consensus or remedy an out-of-order closing. Why, it just happened recently with another deletion of mine, Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Fatman. At any rate, I'm going to have to leave my computer now, so no more of this instant communication -- but please accept that your unconventional AfD closing has led to a confusing situation and the best fix would be to let this AfD run its course. Andre (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO also states – Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mr. Gilbert is not an author (this means of books), editor, or photographer. Andre (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * People who program/write software are also known as authors. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But from context alone, let alone page history, we can clearly see that it refers to published authors. There's no ambiguity. Andre (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.. ?. Along with the sources –, , , , , , , &mdash;  Nearly Headless Nick  17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mr. Gilbert's single independent adventure game, while it has received some press coverage, is hardly part of the enduring historical record, nor is it widely recognized. It's quite obscure, a curiosity at best, and borderline notable. Andre (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete If there are multiple independent reliable sources showing his notability they belong in the article, not just here. The article is also stubby, even after all the previous deletion debate. The multiple references noted by Nick seem to the the same Reuters story appearing in various sites, which to me counts as one refrence, and it sounds like it came from a press release, which is still worth something, I suppose. Edison 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those who have gotten too used to hanging around here may have forgotten this, but the purpose of verifiability guidelines is to ensure that an article is verifiable, not to worship as an ineffiable God.  If an article's notability is undeniably shown in its AFD discussion, then whether or not the article itself meets the guidelines is immaterial. -Toptomcat 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But Mr. Gilbert is not notable. His game, The Shivah, may be -- but he is not. Andre (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - If the previous AFD was improperly closed, it really should be taken to DRV. -- Whpq 19:49, 22 December 2006 (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.