Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Nicholson (game designer)


 * 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   delete. Sorry guys but the delete !voters make the stronger arguments here. You can't rescue them all :( Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Scott Nicholson (game designer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Non-notable game designer. K1eyboard (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim of notability. MLA (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - While he's a relatively well-known blogger within the board gaming community, but I don't think that transfers to general notability. Here's his BGG profile. Kuguar03 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7. No claim of notability is made in the article. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The revised version of the article now makes some weak claims of notability. However he still fails WP:PROFESSOR and WP:GNG. He's an associate professor (not a full professor) and there's no evidence that his research has been particularly influential yet. The news coverage linked to below simply confirms that the subject exists. There is no significant coverage of the subject. (Each of the newspaper references in the article mention the subject exactly once.) Pburka (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, his reputation goes well beyond just being a "blogger within the board gaming community" - he teaches board game deign at MIT. In fact considering that the person above recognises Scoot's reputation in the board gaming community and as that is what he is notable for, then perhaps we should accept the consensus which has emerged within that community that Scott is notable, rather than rely on comments from a small group of people who have not necessarily informed themselves about what constitutes notability in this context.Harrypotter (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the record, I'm very involved in the board gaming community myself, and have even met Scott. My opinion is not based "on comments from a small group of people who have not necessarily informed themselves about what constitutes notability in this context", but my understanding of WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. If you feel he is notable under those, or some other relevant guideline, the onus is on you to show it. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - while 'professor of board game design' might sound like a notable position, from what sources I can find I don't think he passes WP:ACADEMIC. Robofish (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * weak keep for the moment. I'm seeing some coverage and his book seems to be available in a fair number of libraries according to worldcat.  Plus some coverage  in moderately reliable sources.  I think we _should_ have a bio on him, but I can't show he meets any of our inclusion guidelines at this time. I'll try to do a more detailed search later when not at work. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tagged for rescue as I suspect there is enough out there, but I don't have the time at the moment (and probably won't until the weekend) to search it out. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hobit: could you explain why your link [1] above is relevant? I can't see any coverage of the subject on that page whatsoever. Qwfp (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, cut and paste error from the same site.  was the link in question. Sorry about that. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This link appears to be just an advertisement and/or press release for his book. Not sure if this qualifies as independent coverage.  Snotty Wong   gossip 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

to the talk page because I think every article being discussed for deletion should have the relevant project templates. I am unsure about whether I have provided all the relevant templates for a game designer, so other editors should go ahead with changes. I have no comment on the merits, except to say that the current article is rather short and dull, giving me no particular reason to want the article kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * weak keep as well. After working on rescuing the article, I would say he weakly fits criterion 7 of academic notability.  He is cited by a number of news sources, but his topic of research is so narrow that I wouldn't expect him to be "frequently" quoted.  His book also weakly supports criterion 7. -- Ken_g6 (factors &#124; composites) 20:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep His name along with the words "library" and "game" show results in the Google news archive search. The Columbus Dispatch and others consider him an expert on this subject and quote him on it.   D r e a m Focus  03:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I added


 * Delete Non-notable game designer who wrote a non-notable book. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not particularly notable. ARS editors have not improved the article enough to make retention worthwhile. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Beyond writing a book, he appears to be a generally non-notable professor.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (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.