Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Langdell


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tim Langdell

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

Nominated for Prod, but the people who have been discussing notability on the talk page have shown strong COI in various directions, and I bring it to AfD for a community consensus. This is not my subject, and I have no particular opinion myself, and I urge those discussing it to do it objectively. DGG (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Certainly would fail WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete this article because it is was started as obvious self promotion by someone who is not notable for the claims in the version as of last month and give a final warning to User:Cheridavis about sock puppet single purpose accounts. Glider87 (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 09:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * comment seems to be some notability around the intellectual property/trademark dispute. It is not covered well in the article, but i bet there is enough secondary sources to make that verifiable/notable.--Buridan (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this article as it fails to meet guidelines for notability for a biography on all counts. In addition to the basic criteria, he would seem to fit under (and fail under) WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:PROF). In addition, Tim Langdell (including his trademark disputes) is not covered well (if at all) in reliable, secondary sources. I, for one, have searched for the best sources to document lawsuits he has participated in, and all I have found are the documents already included in the article, which are meager. Finally, the user who created this article, User:Cheridavis (contribs), appears to be connected to the subject in real life (perhaps his wife ), and her only contributions have been creating articles about Tim Langdell and adding him and his company to existing articles in an apparent attempt at promoting his brand. -- Transity  ( talk &bull; contribs ) 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to double-dip, but I just read Buridan's comment. I would suggest that any coverage of the lawsuits (if they turn out to be notable enough and verifiable enough) could be handled in the article EDGE Games, which is Langdell's company, and which is at the center of all of the legal disputes. That article, to me, seems much more noteworthy than Langdell's bio, and I would favor keeping that one and deleting this one. -- Transity  ( talk &bull; contribs ) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BIO, etc., as above. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:BIO, article content is just going to wind up duplicating Edge Games anyway. If he has some particular personal achievements they can probably be included on Edge Games. Sockatume (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was unaware of this guy's presence on WP and anything surrounding that, as well as the courtroom goings-on out in the real world. However, I'd just like to point out that a) this article is particularly relevant (is the WP community aware of this, or am I just behind the times?) and b) that I'd be quite surprised if someone who started such a prolific software house and caused a lot of uproar in the gaming community is truly non-notable. Someoneanother 15:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - struggles to make notability bar. In the event that it is a Keep, there are major issues to be addressed here. Achromatic (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO doesn't meet any of the criteria for creative professionals. Speckssommer (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per current widely accepted standards WP:N. rootology ( C )( T ) 05:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable vanity page. I don't think there is anything notable about the trademark dispute either....its just another dispute and doesn't appear to set any precendentBoobooghost (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Perhaps mention of the trademark case can be made in the IGDA page, since it's a kind of a scandal about an IGDA board member. Rinkuhero (talk) 15:56, 11 June 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.