Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Loomis


 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rick Loomis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no indication that Flying Buffalo is notable, so there's no realistic claim of notability for its founder. The Flying Buffalo article, also nominated for deletion, is sourced entirely by self-published sources. Rklawton (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the lack of sources on the company has nothing to do with this article. There is one solid source on this article, and one lesser source, and I am sure we can find more. BOZ (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching Google using his name and his company's name as I did here shows plenty of coverage in reliable sources going back over 40 years.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep award winning industry pioneer. The nominator actually needs to do some research BEFORE nominating these articles instead of making others do all the work. Web Warlock (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rick Loomis was the Origins Award Hall of Fame winner for 1988. That is enough by itself to merit a Keep, it is the major independent industry award. Web Warlock (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More refs added. Web Warlock (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It's the nomination that's not realistic. See The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games, for example. Warden (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note - we've got one book published by a game manufacturer, one local news article, and one award by a game manufacturer's association. That's the sum total of sources for this biography. That's problematic. Rklawton (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 99% of our articles have problems because only 1% are of good quality. For example, see Rick Loomis (photojournalist).  But this is expected on Wikipedia where it is explicit policy that articles may be imperfect.  But it is not the business of AFD to improve any and all these articles because AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The other Rick Loomis has a Pulitzer. I'm guessing that's automatically notable. It's true that his article is in terrible shape and probably created by a PR agency, but the fact that you haven't seen me nominate it for deletion is pretty good evidence that I'm not using AfD for cleanup. Rklawton (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It also appears from BOZ's edit summaries, an admin who accepted an unsourced edit and removed a "delete" tag based not on a reliable source but rather on "what he knows of" the subject, that he may well have a conflict of interest here. The fact that he knows the subject and accepts edits based on his personal knowledge is extremely problematic. AfD may not be cleanup, but it's definitely the place to remove poorly sourced articles about non-notable subjects. Rklawton (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never met Rick Loomis, and in fact did not even know he existed before I began working on this article. I do not appreciate your insinuations of conflict of interest without evidence. BOZ (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to better explain my involvement with this article. A few weeks ago I found a wonderful source that goes into great detail about the history of the RPG industry, with chapters devoted to a few dozen gaming companies, and detailing numerous game designers, games, and products.  I started off by sourcing articles about game designers, and have done dozens so far and have dozens more to go.  While working on one of the articles, I saw a redlink to the name Rick Loomis, so I investigated further and found out that it had been deleted.  I looked at the deleted content, and felt that it matched with what I knew of Loomis based on the book I've been reading, so I restored the article and started working on it.  That is the sum total of the extent of my involvement in this article. BOZ (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that clarification. It doesn't justify removing a tag from an unsourced paragraph. If you have a source, add it, if not, then at the very least, don't remove the tag. As for the book - it's published by a game making company rather than a publisher concerned with facts. It may be interesting, but it's not necessarily reliable. More importantly, the book's own insignificance does little to promote Loomis' notability. Rklawton (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BOZ did good and should please continue his good work. The scandal here seems to be that the stub about this notable pioneer of computer gaming was deleted for no good reason back in 2005.  Perhaps procedures were sloppy back then but, from what we can see now, the speedy delete reason was "no reason given".  As for the book, that's an excellent source and it is far from alone as Loomis is covered in numerous other books and periodicals including:
 * Swords & Circuitry: A Designer's Guide to Computer Role Playing Games
 * The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games
 * Of Dice and Men
 * P&P-Rollenspiel
 * Technology Review
 * Personal Computing: A Beginner's Guide
 * Computer Gaming World
 * So spielt die Welt
 * Popular Computing
 * Fantasy Role Playing Games
 * If Rklawton doesn't understand this field, he should please leave it to those who do. Perhaps he might improve the article about the other Rick Loomis.  The encyclopedia would benefit more from such constructive work rather than this debate. Warden (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with the sources already extant in the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per multiple sources noted here and cited in the article. I've added a couple of additional sources myself that discuss Loomis (which have more than passing mentions, although the articles are not entirely about him). Also, count me among those who are not happy with the negative insinuations at this AfD about BOZ's editing. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Flying Buffalo. If you take out any information connected to Loomis that is not tied to the company, there's almost nothing left. He and Flying Buffalo are, for all purposes, nearly the same entity, and it better to go on the notable company name than the person. We can still redirect the search on Loomis to Flying Buffalo, and we can have a brief section in the Flying Buffalo article to explain his background, but since it's almost impossible to talk about one without mentioning the other we don't need the other. --M ASEM  (t) 14:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He's the president of the Game Manufacturers Association and so FBI is not the only organisation that he's associated with. Warden (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's not as well associated with him as his association as founder of FBI. And that fact can be added to a brief bio about him if merged to the FBI article. --M ASEM (t) 14:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - GNG/N is met. The baseless bad faith accusations by Rklawton are indicative of a battleground behavior that does nothing to improve Wikipedia's environment or content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources mentioned and provided by Cullen328 and Colonel Warden. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. —Torchiest talkedits 12:57, 14 October 2013 (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.