Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Thomson

Jamie Thomson
Non-notable game designer. RickK 22:15, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 00:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable person. jni 08:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article fails to establish notability. Average Earthman 08:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * In its current form, I'd vote delete. However, if someone tidies it up and improves it then I'd change to keep. He is actually relatively well-known in the RPG field. -- Necrothesp 10:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- fairly well known, in his field. Needs work, but thats not a viable reason for deletion.  -- GWO 17:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable. As well as the books listed here he has worked on other RPG books and I think also computer games - including Warrior Kings.  But need confimation that it's the same person before it's added to the entry.--Tomheaton 18:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this article. If someone writes a better one, it would be kept.  This, however, is an in-the-know article for people who already know and appreciate him.  As someone who only plays the games, I learn nothing whatsoever about why I should care about this fellow or why he should replace James Thomson in my head as bearer of that name.  (James Thomson was called Jamie.)  Geogre 17:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The article isn't bad quality, it's just a substub. You don't have to care about the person for them to have an entry.  And the fact that he shares a name with someone else is surely irrelevant.  The only issue on which it could be deleted is whether he's notable enough to be included.  As the author of several books - I counted 9 on Amazon, but I believe there are more - I would argue he is.--Tomheaton 18:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Which James Thomson? There are three listed there. And just because you associate the name with one person doesn't necessarily mean that everyone does. I don't see any more (or less) evidence that the two with articles are notable than that Jamie Thomson is. Are poets automatically more notable than game designers? -- Necrothesp 19:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, Necrothesp, they are. Poets who manage to influence the whole course of world literature are especially more notable than people who design games that have the lifespan of mayflies.  Secondly, though, it isn't my foolishness that has me thinking of James Thomson the poet as "the" Jamie Thomson.  It's a question of standing in the canon of world literature vs. a journalist.  As for the quality of the article, what this article tells me is that he went to college and wrote for one magazine and worked on a redlinked game format.  Ok.  So why is that a part of the world?  What part of the history of the human race is this?  In other words, what is the encyclopedic value of this information?  One learns nothing more than that he went to college.  Why is he important?  "James Joyce was an author in Ireland who went to Trinity College, Dublin and who wrote the following books" is not encyclopedic.  It's a gazette entry or a dictionary entry.  Encyclopedias explain the context of knowledge.  Geogre 20:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a stub--Tomheaton 21:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You misinterpret me, Geogre. I said that the articles do not necessarily establish any greater notability for one than for the other. That being the case, there is no particular reason why a poet should be automatically more significant than a games designer. There are many poets in the world with no notability whatsoever. I was not doubting the significance of whichever James Thomson you were referring to, simply questioning your assertion that one is automatically better known because you think he is and because you happen to favour one field of endeavour over another. I, for one, as an historian not a literary scholar, have never heard of James Thomson the poet, but as a roleplayer I have known of Jamie Thomson the games designer for many years. -- Necrothesp 22:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Grr. I see what you mean.  The James Thomson article for the poet needs fixing in a bad way.  I wish the folks who've been pasting in stubs on the poets would kind of quit it. The Seasons is pretty important (and horribly dull) for making the Churchyard Poets possible, who made the Romantic movement possible.  Thomson also wrote the words to "Rule Britania."  Also, for that matter, his wretched Sophonisba is notable for one of the funniest lines of bad verse ever: "O Sophonisba, Sophonisba O."  Anyway, Seasons, "Rule Britania," and The Castle of Indolence, pretty important.  Present article needs attention.  I will go there now. Geogre 00:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)