Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Morris (writer)


 * 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. per evolving consensus that the reviews are sufficient and significant. Star  Mississippi  01:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Dave Morris (writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable author who wrote no notable books. None of the sources listed establish any notabilty for this subject. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagree. Many of his works are widely-read tie-ins to very notable brands, such as TV shows The Crystal Maze and Knightmare, the board game Heroquest, or the comic/show Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. These books were published by major publishers and distributed worldwide. Kylotan (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We need a few good articles about the author to show he meets notability. Publishing books is not enough, unless also he has best sellers. If you know of any articles about him and if he is best seller, please provide citations and improve the article. MartinWilder (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't actually how WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR work. Authors of notable works (which include books with RS reviews) are presumed notable. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a question: given that you made no edits to either of the four articles aforementioned prior to the opening of this AfD discussion, and given that you were inactive for the past year and a half (welcome back!), how did you become aware of this deletion discussion? Pilaz (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I found numerous reviews of Dave Morris's books. I found one source that provided significant coverage about him:  The article notes on page 124: "However, to understand the tools used by current gamebook authors and to what extent, or if indeed they used them at all, various authors were approached via gamebook groups on Facebook and asked about their writing and publishing experiences. The participating authors were Martin Noutch, Dave Morris, TroyAnthony Schermer and Dane Barrett. Dave published numerous works in the 1980s and 1990s, while the other authors have started publishing recently and are all currently engaged in writing gamebooks." The book notes on pages 126–127: "Dave Morris is an established UK gamebook author, with an impressive catalogue of books to his name, authoring and co-authoring many series, including Golden Dragon ([34]), Dragon Warriors ([35]), Blood Sword ([37]) (Figure 5), Knightmare ([31]), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles ([32]), Heroquest ([33]), Virtual Reality ([36]) and Fabled Lands ([38]). He has a cult following amongst gamebook fans, having been part of the Games Workshop team from which most early gamebook authors emerged. Dave's work ranges from simple linear branching narratives for children, as in the Knightmare and Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles series' (both accompanying TV shows) to more complex open-world gamebooks such as Fabled Lands, co-authored with Jamie Thomson ([38]). Despite being an admittedly 'old school' author, Dave had dabbled with a variety of digital tools:" Cunard (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC) </ul> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment well his only work we have an article on is an unsourced article. The notability guidelines for writers were imagined for writers whose work stands or falls on its own, where it either is the whole of the media franchise, or at least is the starting point of the media franchise. When dealing with a writer who writers tie in material with existing media franchises, I think we need to be more careful to find coverage that is actually about the writer, and not just incidental coverage of his or her products because they tie into an existing franchise. I was going to bring up how this is at times a quite complex issue. For example, I believe we do not have an article on the person who wrote the noveliszation of the 2013 film Man of Steel. We also do not have a biography on Gwenda Bond, who wrote a 3 part novel trilogy about Lois Lane (the article Lois Lane, under the novels section has quite a bit of sourced information on this series). I strongly suspect that the latter is more likely to be grounds to create an article on the writer, in large part because it is much more clearly the work of the writer alone. OK, anyone who mentions Lois Lane is of course building on a complex shared mythos, but the later is a work that only a little interacts with the existing mythos, It has Superman/Clark Kent and Perry White as characters, but their roles are very different. In the case of Superman/Clark Kent you know from the beginning you are seeing him (well some pursits would argue Superboy, he is not yet Superman I guess), but those names are not used. I do not remember if Clark Kent is ever used in the book but you know one of the characters is him, at least if you have any knowledge of any of the multitude of media that he has appeared in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Prolific author. Appears to be enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Setting aside the fact that this is listed under Fictional elements (which should not be used for real world authors or works), the subject fails NBIO/NAUTHOR/GNG. He has an impressive list of titles, but they are very niche works and he himself did not attract any independent coverage, not to mention awards. He makes a living as an author but not all authors are notable. There is not even a single independent biography of him outside Wikipedia, our entry is cobbled from various primary sources like book credits, plus an occasional blog. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with Piotrus, fails NBIO/NAUTHOR/GNG due not attracting independent, reliable significant coverage. Source 1 is a blurb and not independent (publisher of author), sources 2-4 are publications from the author, source 5 is a passing mention (p.228), sources 6-14 are blogs, unreliable SPS, and not about the author, source 15 is a publication from the author, source 16 is not archived anywhere, and source 17 is from the author too. Pilaz (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

The whole reason though that I brought up NBOOK is its specification (at a fairly high WP:CONLEVEL, certainly higher than your 3REFS reference) that two RS reviews establishes Notability. Not three, not five. Granted, you can quibble about whether the app adaptation is sufficiently different from a physical book for NBOOK to apply, but that would be to miss my point. My point is (1) there is no reason why a creative work would generally need more than two reviews to be Notable, and (2) if you are arguing that the app version of Frankenstein is sufficiently different from a book that NBOOK doesn't apply, that also strongly suggests that the new...technique being pioneered here has a stronger claim to significant originality than you are willing to recognize. And if you wanted to know why I made an original assertion re: NAUTHOR rather than starting by offering reviews, you have just showed precisely why: when presented with a consistent and sourced argument that GNG is met (citing NBOOK as a clarifying example), you ignore site-wide consensus and double down on your personal preferences (such as 3REFS or your unusual reading of CREATIVE point 2). Also, as specified in NBIO, NBASIC does not need to be metal for a subject to be presumed notable (which was, in fact, the point I made and that you ignored at the top of this thread). Your idiosyncratic reading of BIOSPECIAL as a required practice simply doesn't follow either the contextual language of the guideline or WP practice, and arguing as though your own "unique" interpretation is the only one possible is, itself, UNCIVIL. And just so that we are clear, this was not a VAGUEWAVE - it was an explicit claim, which I subsequently backed up. So, nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR was simply a false statement on your part, though I assume it was a lapse and not deliberate. Your interjection, Oh please was simply rude, and A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here is UNCIVIL and even gaslight-ey when the logic has in fact be spelled out, as I had already done. So yes, you were engaged in clearly UNCIVIL behaviour, even if the apparent gaslighting was not intentional. My question about CIR may have been out of line, but the tendentiousness of your argumentation here is arguably more of a problem than simple CIR would be. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep due to involvement in Dragon Warriors.Gusfriend (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard's sourcing. I admire his persistence in finding actual sourcing on a relatively niche author having a very common name. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is one source enough to satisfy WP:NBIO these days? Pilaz (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the NAUTHOR pass, that isn't really the question, is it? Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It actually is, since nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (outside of WP:VAGUEWAVE). Pilaz (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and Kirkus offer unquestionably RS reviews of Morris's created work, satisfying NAUTHOR 3, and the originality of that app adaptation also seems to satisfy NAUTHOR 2. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh please. An app is a "significant new concept, theory, or technique"? Significant or well-known work with two reviews? One source for the subject of the article to pass WP:BASIC? Even if you were arguing for a WP:AUTHOR pass (I think you're mistakingly calling it NAUTHOR, which just redirects to BIO), WP:BIOSPECIAL demands a merge. A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here. Pilaz (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The GNG logic - reflected for example in WP:NBOOK - is that two RS reviews make a work notable. The logic of WP:AUTHOR is that the creators of notable works are themselves presumed to be notable - the threshold for a significant or well-known work for CREATIVE isn't any higher than that for NBOOK or the GNG. Two reviews meets it. And of you can't read the reviews for content and see the innovation they attribute to the app adaptation of Frankenstein, frankly, that's your own (CIR?) issue. The logic of WP:N is apparently something you grasp only vaguely, or you wouldn't say things like against all logic when the logic has already been (somewhat painfully) clarified for you. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One ≠ multiple. The definition for multiple is kept purposefully vague, and WP:3REFS is what I consider the bare minimum number of in-depth reviews. WP:BASIC still isn't met regardless (we're still at one short bio within an article, where Morris is an interviewee). If creating an app adaption of Frankenstein represents a "significant new concept, theory, or technique" (which of the three?), surely you'll be able to help me understand how it distinguishes itself from the scores of other recreations featured in Frankenstein in popular culture, and why the Guardian finds that Morris hasn't fully exploited the device's capabilities in order to reanimate the wild technological imaginings of the story as Shelley herself might have done. Questioning my arguments on WP:CIR grounds doesn't do your argument justice, so please remain WP:CIVIL: if you're going to make an unsubstantiated WP:VAGUEWAVE argument and are later asked to back it up with sources, it's not a personal attack against you. Pilaz (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First, let me note that you've sidestepped the Guardian criticizing the app's deficiencies to argue that the app is a "new significant technique". Second, I think I'm starting to understand your argument better (please correct me if this is written inexactly): you believe that because a book passes NBOOK (SNG), then the author automatically passes AUTHOR (another SNG), and then that makes the author pass the GNG. Is that correct? Because not only do SNGs not work like that, SNGs are separate from the GNG. Why else would we have WP:BIOSPECIAL, for those rare cases where an author might fail WP:BASIC but pass any of the criteria of the SNG? WP:SNG also clearly indicates that the SNGs and GNGs are separate: articles which pass an SNG or [not and] the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article. When I wrote nobody here has argued that this author passes any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (outside of WP:VAGUEWAVE) (you omitted that part of the sentence), I really meant that and I stand by it. Nobody had, previous to my comment, cited the SNG AND substantiated their claim with evidence. That is the definition of WP:VAGUEWAVE: just pointing to a policy without substantiating it with evidence (after you substantiated it, it was no longer a WP:VAGUEWAVE, obviously. I'm not even sure whether this needs spelling out). The oh please is quite evidently exasperation: when I wrote An app adaptation is a significant new concept, theory, or technique?, the exasperation was due to the fact that you didn't specify which of the three it was (all three? some? one only?). And it took you only two replies to get your answer: "a technique". Was I supposed to just go my merry way, and not ask which of the three it was? I still argue that an app adaptation is not a novel technique (I'm pretty sure that word was included in the SNG for those who, for example, pioneered the technique to separate barium from radium). Adding more vagueness to an already vague guideline doesn't help the discussion go forward, so please take the time to dig to the deepest level of clarity and reduce the vagueness from your arguments, as that will make your argument not only easier to understand, but also easier to support. Finally, regarding the final sentence A keep vote is pretty much against all logic here, it was the logical continuation of Even if you were arguing for a WP:AUTHOR pass WP:BIOSPECIAL demands a merge. But interpreting BIOSPECIAL is "UNCIVIL" apparently, so that means the whole final sentence is gaslighting. Unless it isn't, because BIOSPECIAL says that if you don't meet BASIC but meet AUTHOR, a merge should be performed. Just because you have a different interpretation of BIOSPECIAL doesn't mean your interpretation is UNCIVIL either. Please do not stop assuming good faith. I apologize for the "oh please", which could have been written differently to express my incomprehension with your argument, and stand by everything else that I have written. If you still think I'm being UNCIVIL, start a discussion at AN/I. If any other editors have read this far, I'd be interested to hear third opinions. Pilaz (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure everyone will appreciate that I am not going to respond to that whole WALLOFTEXT. But you seem to misunderstand what it means for the SNGs to be separate from the GNG. As one of the authors of the current text at WP:SNG, I assure you that SNGs and GNG are generally separate paths to Notability (and for biographies, NBASIC operates as a specification of the GNG while criteria like CREATIVE operate as SNGs). The text you keep harping on at BIOSPECIAL was, as far as I know, never intended by anyone as a rule for all cases where the BIO SNGs are met but BASIC is not; you and I have discussed this before at some length, and what is UNCIVIL is for you to pretend that only your interpretation of BIOSPECIAL exists, as though you have never heard a contrary view.
 * Also, I continue to he annoyed at your misstatements of my basic claims here. It is not that because a book passes NBOOK (SNG), then the author automatically passes AUTHOR (another SNG), and then that makes the author pass the GNG. The only part of that which is correct is that producing a Notable work makes its creator Notable per CREATIVE. But NBOOK is not simply an SNG - it preempts the GNG in specifying what counts as reliable sourcing for book Notability (two reviews). And the end of your paraphrase is sadly mistaken - the NAUTHOR SNG is a direct claim to WP:N Notability and does not "predict" GNG (or NBASIC) sourcing, which is a separate and parallel presumption of Notability. The text of WP:SNG and of WP:NBIO is as clear on this point as it can be, I think, given the heterogenous nature of SNGs and topic areas. Newimpartial (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I opened the ANI archive and, wow. I understand better why you don't want to drag me to the drama board, having barely scratched the surface of your presence in it. I wish I hadn't given you such an extended reply after you cherry-picked my text and went on a tirade about my uncivility here instead of my talk page or ANI (apparently a textual interpretation of a guideline is UNCIVIL). I wish I had known sooner that all of those accusations were made in bad faith and were simply ungrounded. Goodbye. Pilaz (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of accusations ... made in bad faith is itself a CIVIL violation. Please don't do that. And attacking me doesn't lend strength to your idiosyncratic interpretations of policy, nor is it relevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per arguments above particularly about meeting WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR and sourcing found by Cunard, and also per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added several sources that indicate continued interest in several of his works, especially his Fabled Lands series. Guinness323 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No WP:GNG meeting coverage, per the following source assessment table.

BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fascinating, but creating a table doesen't make the claims an editor makes based on their own POV any more authoritative becaus they are presented in tabular form. There is no basis in policy to set the bar of WP:SIGCOV where this editor thinks it ought to be. Newimpartial (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to dispute my assessments; which ones do you disagree with? BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The ones departing most clearly from policy are your evaluations of the Designers & Dragons and "Use of using digital tools " sources. You also don't appear to have done a satisfactory BEFORE, and don't give any apparent recognition to NAUTHOR considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The coverage in "The use of using digital tools in developing branching narrative" does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG; the only independent coverage of any length is Dave Morris is an established UK gamebook author, with an impressive catalogue of books to his name, authoring and co-authoring many series, including Golden Dragon (Morris and Johnson 1984–85), Dragon Warriors (Morris and Johnson 1985–86), Blood Sword (Morris et al. 1987–88) (Figure 5), Knightmare (Morris 1988–94), Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (Morris 1990–91), Heroquest (Morris 1993), Virtual Reality (Morris and Smith 1995–96) and Fabled Lands (Morris and Thomson 1995–96). He has a cult following amongst gamebook fans, having been part of the Games Workshop team from which most early gamebook authors emerged. and Dave’s work ranges from simple linear branching narratives for children, as in the Knightmare and Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles series’ (both accompanying TV shows) to more complex open-world gamebooks such as Fabled Lands, co-authored with Jamie Thomson (Morris and Thomson 1995–96). Despite being an admittedly ‘old school’ author, Dave had dabbled with a variety of digital tools:. Most of this is made up of a bibliography, and of the rest all we can say is that His work ranges from linear branching narratives to complex open-world gamebooks, and has a cult following amongst gamebook fans due to his previous work with Games Workshop. He has used a number of digital tools; if that and simple facts are all we can get out of this work, then it isn't WP:SIGCOV.
 * I've also reviewed "Designers and Dragons" using the links provided by Pilaz, and it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:GNG - see updated table.
 * And no, I didn't do a WP:BEFORE. I didn't nominate the article for deletion, and at this point I assume all sources that could meet WP:GNG have been provided. As for WP:NAUTHOR, it is unclear whether Fabled Lands is a significant or well-known work, and even if it is WP:NBIO states that People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included - and if we cannot find coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, then it should not be included. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * NBIO, like the GNG itself, is a presumption of Notability (and inclusion) - the GNG is not a universal formula for Notability (or inclusion) nor is it a requirement for all articles. Perhaps you should read WP:SNG.
 * Also, in your table, you appear to be requiring the sources to discuss the article's subject apart from their Notable work to contribute to the Notability of the subject in terms of SIGCOV. There is no basis for this in WP policy or guidelines, however. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is, but it does not guarantee that a subject should be included. And sources that discuss the author in the context of their work count towards notability, such as an article that discusses how Tolkien's background contributed to the lore of the Lord of the Rings, but sources that only discuss the work do not; these sources are the latter, not the former. BilledMammal (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as bizarre (and lacking grounding in WP policy) to interpret a paragraph documenting the subject's contributions to a field as only discussing the work and not the author. Any independent RS that can be used to make relevant statements about the article's subject contribute to its Notability with respect to SIGCOV. There is simply no basis in WP policy or guidelines to require sources akin to an article that discusses how Tolkien's background contributed to the lore of the Lord of the Rings so that Notability can be established (no slight against such sources, of course, which are valuable). Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is because we cannot write an article about the creator with such sources; if we tried to write an article about Tolkien using sources that only discuss the Lord of the Rings, then we would have an article about the Lord of the Rings, and not an article about Tolkien. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to Designers and Dragons that you could incorporate into your analysis. Mentions of Morris can be found in the second edition, first and third volume. Pilaz (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, done. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * : sorry, I just realized I should have also linked the second and fourth volume for transparency's sake, although he does not appear in either. Pilaz (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, updated. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. An author's notability is in his books, his have been widely reviewed, including in The Guardian. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED; not every creator of a notable work is notable, and not every work of a notable creator is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't the way NOTINHERITED works, though: it dictates that the works of a Notable author are not necessarily notable, but it is not intended to offer an opinion on the other direction of travel. NAUTHOR (and other SNGs) are clear on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. BilledMammal (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't correct to interpret NOTINHERITED the same way in relation to NCORP as to NAUTHOR, however, regardless of any loose writing to the contrary. In fact, you seem to be citing an essay against a guideline, which isn't a good look IMO.  Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I will cite WP:N: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The topic in this case is Dave Morris, not Fabled Lands. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So that excludes sources that are only about Fabled Lands, but includes sources that discuss Dave Morris as creator of Fabled Lands. We can most certainly write a policy-compliant article based on sources of the latter kind. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If their discussion of Morris amounts to significant coverage, yes. But that coverage was not found in any of the sources in the article. BilledMammal (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I hate to get in the way of a good two way argument about my opinion, but somehow feel as if I should respond at least once. NOTINHERITED is generally for authors of a single work (and to be honest, not always then; we have several articles about authors of a single work). In this case, though I appreciate the platypus's (echidna's? are there any others?) point, Morris has written so much that I humbly think the cumulative coverage is sufficient. Feel free carry on. --GRuban (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find the arguments and policy points raised by those arguing for keep far more persuasive than those arguing for delete. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep sources are well past the GNG. Designers and Dragaons and the Digital Tools book are about enough, but with the rest we're in good shape. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Designers and Dragons" are about enough? Which mentions Morris three times, to tell us that he wrote a series called Dragon Warriors, that he wrote a series called Fabled Lands, and that James Wallace had obtained a licence to to Morris' Dragon Warriors? I realize that there are different definitions of significant coverage, but "Designers and Dragons" cannot reasonably be considered sufficient coverage of Morris. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't see those RS statements as relevant to Morris, or usable for this article? That dismissal doesn't sound "reasonable" to me - this source looks like a clear SIGCOV pass. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They are relevant and usable, but that isn't the definition of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of nonsense gets written about WP:SIGCOV, mostly at AfD. The actual guideline definition of Significant Coverage is simply that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. That's it, and the NOR requirement is part amd parcel to the source being "relevant and usable" for the article. The source need not make a claim the article's subject is significant, nor need it be of any particular length or (analytical) depth - as some editors constantly insist at AfD for no policy-compliant reason. Newimpartial (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Telling us that he authored two works, and that a James Wallace obtained a licence to one of those works, is "in detail"? BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is more information in each source than you have just laid out (starting with what the works in question in fact are). In fact, the difference between your paraphrase and the actual RS just might represent the difference between something that is not "in detail" (your paraphrase, which says nothing usable) and something that is "in detail" (the actual sources, which say something usable). Again, "in detail" here essentially means "in sufficient detail to use in the article without OR". Newimpartial (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * keep. Conventionally, in practice, an author typically survives per WP:NAUTHOR if they have at least two items that pass WP:NBOOK. The reviews accomplish that here. In addition to the reviews, Morris’s Frankenstein app probably passes the NBOOK criteria for being the subject of instruction at multiple schools, as I have personally taught it in an undergrad English class. NAUTHOR, like WP:NPROF, is a little unusual as an SNG because it does explicitly allow persons to derive notability from coverage of their works even if the sourcing only discusses those works rather than discussing the person directly. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as they have written multiple noteworthy books.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.