Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Jones (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. Can be userfied (by somebody other than me) via WP:REFUND. No new sources have been added since the AfD started.  Sandstein  09:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

William Jones (game designer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The only sources we have are a chapter the subject authored and a passing mention in his publisher's entry in the list of exhibitors for a book trade show. Google doesn't seem to be of much more help in finding sources, certainly nothing that would qualify as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep if sources can be found, otherwise Userfy. I hadn't noticed the IP's request to AFD the article; I saw an AFD template on the article but no discussion, so I userfied it in order to work on it later. If that would be an acceptable compromise, this can go back to my userspace without needing to be deleted. BOZ (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming that sources aren't found over the course of the week, then, am I correct in understanding that you would support userfying the article rather than keeping it? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. BOZ (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if one could find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but if you want search further, by all means do so. That being said, if there are not sources that meet those criteria, what would be the purpose of userfication? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because there's no deadline? I have come across many unsourced or barely sourced articles that have sat neglected for years and found sources for them. Many users are not patient enough to allow for that to happen, which is a shame, but I do what I can where I can. That's more than enough purpose; if you don't get where I'm coming from then I don't see a point in further discussing this. BOZ (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just trying to understand – is there something about the subject that leads you to believe he might be notable more than, say, any obscure author selected at random from WorldCat (excluding those who have only published with vanity presses and the like)? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, or move to user space if so desired. Based on existing sources, it seems like the subject has written content for some pen and paper RPG projects that are barely notable in themselves. signed,Rosguill talk 20:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or Userify - I suspect that Jones meets WP:CREATIVE on the basis of the anthologies he has edited, if nothing else, but I am not prepared to find additional sources or fix the article at the moment. Userification would be appropriate. As far as the IP question is concerned, any "obscure author selected at random from WorldCat" will indeed meet NAUTHOR so long as their work has met with multiple critical comments. It isn't necessary to be "well-known" to be notable. Newimpartial (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP lacks WP:SIGCOV that would allow it to pass GNG. No criteria for inherent notability for game designers. Per our SOP, a high level of caution is to be used when userifying BLPs and the breadth of article and sourcing is so light that nothing meaningful will be lost by its deletion. Chetsford (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In case you hadn't noticed, Chetsford, the subject was an author and editor of fiction, so CREATIVE applies even if one were to grant your FRINGE view that CREATIVE does not somehow apply to game designers. Your !vote is therefore clearly not compliant with policy. Newimpartial (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You disagree that people who write and publish conventional fiction are covered by WP:CREATIVE?? What colour is the sky, then? Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2018 (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.