Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhianna Pratchett (2nd 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 (NAC) --Unionhawk Talk 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rhianna Pratchett

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am unsure whether this article has been nominated for deletion before. The talk page does carry the comment, 'Not a speedy. Does not meet any of the criteria.Dr Zen 01:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)' I am nominating the page for deletion because I fail to see how the subject is notable enough to have an article of her own. She is apparently a former journalist who now works in the computer games industry. I am sure that there are lots of people in computer games who do not have articles on Wikipedia. Surely the most notable thing about her is that she is Terry Pratchett's daughter. Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep per no. 2 in the article 'Game Industry's 100 Most Influential Women'  Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen this, but does being (according to one magazine's opinion) one of the 100 most influential women in the games industry make somebody notable? Take a list like this, Thirty-five under 35/this, Alpha females on the way up. Only two of the thirty-five have Wikipedia articles; shall we create articles for all of them? It must be said, some of them sound considerably more notable than Rhianna Pratchett. What about the other ninety-nine most influential women in the games industry? Do they all need articles here? What about the most influential 100 men? These aren't even the most influential 100 people, but only the most influential women. Assuming that influence in the games industry is split 50/50 between men and women (which it obviously isn't), that would make her one of the most influential 200 people. Do we need articles on the 200 most influential people in, say, soft drinks or tobacco? It looks to me like she got here because she has a famous parent.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the article, as a Terry Pratchett fan reading the name Rhianna Pratchett in a Overlord newsbulletin stirs my curiousity, and therefor i wiki'd the name, if not for this article i would never have know that she is indeed Terry's daughter. Koesper (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents. Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - easily meets the notability guidelines independent of any family relations. The extensive coverage provided in the references, from websites such as Ars Technica, Joystiq and others, is sufficient for notability. As the primary writer of several notable video games, and according to one list the 2nd most important woman in the game industry, she's pretty clearly notable. As for the fact that 'there are lots of people in computer games who do not have articles on Wikipedia.' - that's probably true, but that means you should create articles on those people, not delete this one. Robofish (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Second most important? Number 2 on the list? If these comments refer to this list - Game Industry's 100 Most Influential Women - there has been some mistake. The list is arranged in alphabetical order and she appears at no. 2 on p. 9, between Powers and Ray. Or is there another list that I haven't seen?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you're right; I misread the list. I still think the significant coverage in the references provided is enough to justify keeping this article, though. Robofish (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article passes notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - The nomination appears to have been done without following WP:BEFORE as a simple google search produces plenty of useable reliable sources, eg Joystiq, The Guardian, 1UP, Kotaku, Newsarama.com, the British Writer's Guild, also mentioning she won that organization's 2008 award for video games script, Rock Paper Shotgun and all of this within the first 15 search results. Come on now. This passes WP:RS and WP:V without a shred of doubt even if the article is in a poor state. AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup. MLauba (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that this article had been submitted for the old VfD process in 2004: Votes for deletion/Rhianna Pratchett. --MLauba (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. Please do your homework before proposing deletion. MuZemike 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did plenty of homework, thanks. I even realised that she was not no. 2 on that famous list, but no. 2 on p. 9 of an alphabetical list, which nobody else had spotted before. I just didn't realise that other people would think she looked notable. I haven't played a computer game for about twenty years, which might explain why I failed to spot her notability. Likewise I have had to argue for not deleting an article about a theologian, presumably AfDed by somebody who knew nothing about theology and hence did not understand his notability.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2009 (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.