Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Hallford


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 04:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Neal Hallford
This article is pure soapbox of a non-notable individual. Futhermore, I honestly believe the article was created by this individual personally for vanity having the username: Nealiios which obviously coincides with Neal Hallford. I nominate to Delete. OSU80 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as notability is borderline. Article reads as vanity but may be worthwhile after cleanup. Eddie.willers 21:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep vanity or not, the guy actually has had his hand in quite a few notable computer game designs. (when I saw the name, I automatically went "Oh yeah, Betrayal at Krondor...") Definitely needs cleanup, but that's not what AfD is for. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. [[Image:Flag of Ohio.svg|20px]]  mm  e  inhart ''' 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep First off, OSU80 is trying to make it sound like he's (she's) somehow diligently burrowed out my secret identity. I'm not Batman. If I were trying to post this article annonymously, I wouldn't use "nealiios" as my screen name on Wikipedia. Give all of us some credit. Secondly, user OSU80 obviously has an attitude that computer game designers and writers don't merit the same kind of recognition as would be given any writer, musician, or film director. On pages for those individuals, you would expect to see listings of their works, as would be entirely appropriate. Today, the computer gaming industry generates more annually than Hollywood makes at the box-office, which makes it the most powerful force in popular culture. Nowhere on this page am I editorializing that I am the greatest game designer who ever lived, nor making any statements that cannot be factually backed up. I am not trying to sell anything to anyone. I am also not implying in any way, shape, or form that other game designers should not be accorded the very same kind of entries. If we allow a single individual like OSU80 to single-handedly decide that a person's work is "non-notable", then there is very little purpose in Wikipedia. This service is meant to provide people with information in one place, not to become a link factory that simply sends people flying all over the net to find the information they need. If simply following links elsewhere was the purpose, then there would be no point to Wikipedia. I could do the very same thing in Google. Don't let this one user decide what YOU can't see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nealiios (talk • contribs).
 * Comment You have 27 edits total in Wikipedia's mainspace. Your only contributions are for yourself and the games you've helped produce/create/whatever.  Writing about yourself is a Faux pas. You notice the article has been cleaned up again since I cleaned it up.


 * "The book he co-authored with his wife Jana, Swords & Circuitry: A Designer's Guide to Computer Role-Playing Games, has been adopted as a game development textbook at several colleges in the United States."


 * That sentence alone is called soapboxing, where's your reference? Perhaps you should try reading Wikipedia is not a Soapbox


 * Personally I don't believe writing articles about yourself is encyclopedic material. Hey what do you know, this guy agrees with me per here WP:AUTO.  Thanks!  OSU80 02:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as per Wwwwolf, if Hallford's accomplishments can be re-written for neutrality. --M e rovingian { T C @ } 07:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wwwwolf. --mtz206 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 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.