Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Hunter Johnson (3rd 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 no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Having reviewed the arguments for each side, no clear consensus has been reached on whether or not the sourcing is adequate, and both the !votes and consensus arguments appear to be about 50:50 with each other. Given the previous delisting and as long as this AFD has ran (for the past 20 days), it's time we shelve this for now. As Dcs002 indicated, this discussion can always be brought up again, and I do feel it will at some point because the matter has not been truly settled, but perhaps for now that is better solved through another process, such as RFC, until a more clear picture of the situation and the relevance of BLP policy on the sources of this article can be better agreed upon. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Hunter Johnson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)cover

I ask everyone who adds their vote here to please read my rationale and really give it some consideration. This article was sent to AfD twice in the past, most recently in 2007, and kept both times. I realize because of this the initial response to this will be to want to vote KEEP straight off. However, I strongly believe that this article should be deleted for the following reasons.

The most recent !keep in 2007 noted that the article had been sourced (whereas before it really wasn't). Since 2007, the WP:BLP policy has become MUCH more stringently enforced, and for good reason. BLP requires HIGH QUALITY, third party sources.

Currently, this article is sourced to the following: TWO online BIOs from random websites which are certainly not HIGH QUALITY sources and would fail WP:RS, ONE blog (blogs do not satisfy WP:RS, ONE link to the subject's own website (primary sources are not acceptable to establish Notability), and ONE link to what appears to be a reliable source (Kidscreen Magazine).

The ONE link to the reliable source actually contains ZERO information about the subject of this article. Please look for yourself.

The subject has published some articles and books. Simply publishing some books and/or articles does NOT satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO, particularly when there are absolutely ZERO quality, reliable, third-party sources that cover the subject of the article beyond one or two trivial passing mentions.

You can't build a biographical article on a living person (or even a deceased one) off of blog posts, random websites, self-published sources, and articles that don't even mention the subject.

The BLP policy is clear and this article should be deleted. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A WP:RS for someone involved in RPG development would necessarily be RPG news sites, you're not likely to find much in the New York Times. Are you suggesting that RPG authors are inherently not notable? WP:RPG would suggest otherwise. XeroxKleenex (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument sounds a lot like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No reliable sources that cover the subject of this article exist. I know because I looked. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
XeroxKleenex, can you give us any "RPG news sites" to search? Or print journals from the industry? That would help establish notability, one way or the other. Dcs002 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our AfD discussion here already has numerous problems. There are too many open questions and issues for me to !vote to delete this article. Therefore, without a clear reason to delete, I say keep things as they are. Here's what I mean:

The Master, exactly which part of the WP:BLP policy do you believe this article fails? I see no unsourced contentious content or material likely to be challenged that specifically require BLP's strict RS guidelines. (I don't see any of that kind of content at all.) It seems to have no NPOV issues (facts are simply stated), and it does not seem to be an attack or a hoax. If your reason for nominating this for AfD is lack of notability, then say so, and we'll have that discussion. (That can be fixed if that's your contention.) I need to know which policy(s) you believe this violates. We can't go on a fishing expedition for faults because the article has problems. The proper remedy in that case is to fix the article.
The Master, can you define exactly what makes a website a "random" website, and therefore not reliable? And which references you are referring to when you use that term? That term does not appear on the WP:RS page. Please define your terms into something policy-based so I can decide for myself whether this sourcing is a real policy issue. You sound very keen to persuade people to delete this article, and I feel a bit uncomfortable about that. (Using dismissive language like "random websites" is one basis for that comment. You mention several policies, but you do not say clearly how this article fails those policies.) Article deletion is a serious undertaking, requiring dispassionate review of facts and policy.
It looks like he published more than "some books and/or articles." That looks like a lot of publications to me.
The KidScreen page is used to cite the 250,000+ registered users of gToons, not anything about Johnson himself. It is used properly. It substantiates that gToons is in widespread use, and therefore does support notability. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GToons#gToons - usage apparently increased, though the source on that WP article is a dead link.
The French article is a first-person autobiography (e.g., self-submitted), and the Pen and Paper article is a dead link - both problematic.
Does anyone know what it means that Johnson "worked with" White Wolf Publishing to develop gToons? Did he himself design the game? Was he a design worker on the game? Co-designer? This is important if we're discussing notability. We should find this out. If he designed it, and if there were over 400,000 registered users, that argues notability.
WP:DELETE says "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" may be deleted. Has anyone made a thorough attempt? What was tried? (A thorough attempt is different from waiting a long time for someone else to source things.)

The WP:BIO page includes the following:

Insufficient sources

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:

Look for sources yourself
Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.
Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

Not all of these steps have not been followed. I think there is a LOT of work that needs to be done before we talk about deletion. Dcs002 (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer one of the questions: "Does anyone know what it means that Johnson "worked with" White Wolf Publishing to develop gToons?" CartoonNetwork.com contracted with White Wolf for the game, and White Wolf contracted me. I designed it, submitted it to WW, who submitted it to CN.com. I am unaware of any (non-primary) reliable sources for this information, however. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you do think of any 3rd party resources, in print or online (or even in credits for some media - those can be RS too), attributing the game design to you, please do let us know. It would really help us out for purposes of this discussion. Dcs002 (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC

Comment We do not automatically keep BLPs that are unsourced or poorly sourced to blogs and random websites that fail WP:RS. Per WP:RS (the very first sentence on the page: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . I don't see a reputation for fact checking and accuracy from either of the two websites with the bios. I did look for real sources, there aren't any. The above comments do not address the severe lack of sources that cover the subject of this article, whether they are in the article or not. Notability is established by ONE THING ONLY: multiple, reliable, third party sources. The subject of this article fails WP:N at it's very basic level and I've yet to see any argument that it does not. Notability isn't a given, and it can't be established by WP:OR. EDIT: Also, I respectfully ask that you refrain from making personal statements about me, os trying to cast a pall on my motives. Yes, I believe the article should be deleted as it does not conform to policy. There's nothing wrong with that so I'm not sure why you would attach negative connotations to it. I have no personal animosity and my rationale is based on very objective language. - The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. My words did come off as personal, and I wish I hadn't done that. Instead of questioning your motives, I wanted to point out how a nomination for deletion appears to me when it is not clearly based on a clear statement of policy. I don't like how it looks, and it leaves me with little to go on policy-wise. With that, I feel uncomfortable. From your above comments, I understand that you are basing your nomination for deletion on the lack of established notability. (I would prefer that you make that clear in your nomination.)
Given the question of notability, I think it is more important now than ever to look up those numerous articles and reviews given in the article. There is the one reference giving the number of registered users, at the time, of the game he apparently designed. You yourself described Kidscreen Magazine as a RS in your nomination. That source definitely helps to establish notability as long as his role as the designer can be established.
When you said, "I don't see a reputation for fact checking and accuracy from either of the two websites with the bios," which two websites were you referring to? Were they the two you described as "random websites?" (I would still like a definition of that so we can discuss this based on policy.) The bio I saw in the French website is self-submitted apparently. It's in the first-person. It does not help establish notability.
"I did look for real sources, there aren't any." This is self-contradictory. You did look (for whatever you subjectively consider to be "real sources" - the policy refers to reliable sources, another mistake that affects the appearance of this nomination), and you found none. That is VERY different from saying you looked and there are none. Your own ability to find sources is not the last word here. Again, have you or anyone else looked at all those print magazine articles and reviews? Those seem to be sources, maybe RS, that bear heavily on this discussion.
"The above comments do not address the severe lack of sources that cover the subject of this article, whether they are in the article or not. Notability is established by ONE THING ONLY: multiple, reliable, third party sources." There is either a lack of something or there isn't. There is no "severe lack." This hyperbole, again, reflects on the appearance of this nomination for deletion. There is nothing severe about having one good RS vs. two. Right now we have one. We need those print publications really bad right now. From WP:Delete, the remedy for an article in this state, for which notability is not clearly lacking, is to tag it, work on it, and ask for help, not to delete it, unless there is a risk that any unsourced claims could be contentious in some way. Dcs002 (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in magazine articles and reviews, and has authored books. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me, but what magazine articles and reviews? I was unable to find a single one, would you please link them here? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 22:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources need not be linked. They need to be verifiable. The articles and reviews are not linked, but they are certainly verifiable if anyone here cares to look them up the old fashioned way (i.e., not solely online). That would, IMO, constitute a thorough search for sources for this article, thus following WP:Delete. There appears to be a very reasonable chance that this person, or at least his game is notable, and I don't think we can figure that our unless those articles and reviews are checked. Dcs002 (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject has not received significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Sources presented either do not cover the subject or are unreliable. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, this standard for coverage does not now appear in the article, but we must also consider whether this article is fixable and whether any previous version contained sources for such coverage. Fixing it, if possible, is the top priority, not deleting it. Dcs002 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, such sources do not exist. My own research into the matter did not turn up any reliable sources that cover Johnson in any significant way. And both prior AfD discussions dealt with the sourcing issues, with the last one saying the article was kept due to sources being added. But those sources are either not reliable or don't cover the subject. The article has remained in much the same condition for the past 7 years, from what I can see, and no other sources existed in the article. There is simply nothing out there. If there was, one would assume they would have been added to the article at some point. In any case, these sources simply do not exist. You're saying you are positive that reliable sources exist offline, if they do then why haven't you presented them here? There needs to be evidence presented of these sources to convince me the subject of this article is notable, repeatedly saying that the offline reliable sources exist without presenting them as a citation or otherwise is not persuasive. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES also seems to apply. EDIT: While Kidscreen magazine may cover the product, it does not mention Johnson at all. Notability is not inherited, so while such a source could be used in an article about the product to establish notability of the product, it can't be used to establish notability of Johnson. Sources must cover the subject directly. EDIT x2: I also present that WP:BIG explains why the books and magazine articles the subject himself wrote can't be used to establish notability. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your historical perspective. It helps. However, I think the print-only articles and reviews likely speak to the subject's ~~credibility~~ notability, or else listing them here would probably be fraudulent. Are they all self-authored publications? If so, have others cited any of them? (There are so many!) I don't see how we can say notability is not sourced by these publications without finding them and actually reading them to see what they are and what they say. Are these self-authored articles and reviews or are they about the subject or his product? Has nobody looked in 7 years? I do not claim anything of the sort that the subject would inherit notability from the game he designed. Quite the contrary. His game does not have a stand-alone article, and might not itself be notable. But the subject has either a long publishing history or a long history of articles about him or his game, and still, after 7 years, no one has looked into the question of these articles and reviews. Waiting for a certain number of years for someone else to look up printed source material is not conducting an exhaustive search. Waiting any length of time is not an exhaustive search for sources. It is passing the buck - making some other unnamed person responsible for fixing the article. This thorough search should be done before nominating for deletion. Who's responsibility do you think it is to look into the print material? It is ours. There is no "us and them." We all share, and we are all failing. The answer to our group failure is not deletion, but action - a thorough search for the print sources. We MUST NOT delete articles because no one has done the work of verifying the print sources since they were originally listed. The sources are listed, and they are verifiable. They only remain to be verified. I contend that since they have withstood the test of time, they should be accepted as valid until proven otherwise. The only question is not their truth, but what they actually say about the subject and his historical contributions. Dcs002 (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Corrected: Dcs002 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty parsing this... Correct me if I'm mistaken but you seem to be confusing the subjects published works with reliable sources. But the two are completely separate. Anything the subject published himself is a primary source in this case. According to the Notability guideline, notability is established by third-party sources, not the subject's own works. If there are article's about the subject's game, then those articles establish the notability of the game. The articles have to cover the subject directly, not other things he is associated with (this is the basis of WP:N). Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your assessment is not correct. You need to look beyond the WP:N to the specific ways different subjects have of meeting the notability guidelines. In this case, since the article is about a person, WP:PEOPLE describes the criteria for our subject to meet WP:N. WP:PEOPLE says, "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." Then, under WP:CREATIVE, standard 3, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Emphasis added.) At the time I wrote the above comment, I did not know what was written in any of the works listed in the Bibliography section. Were they written by the subject or about the subject, or about his works? Now I see they are written by the subject, but so many articles probably have left a mark - book reviews, references in other articles, that sort of thing. What this WP article needs now are "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" covering his body of work, including games and publications. That is all that remains to establish notability under WP:PEOPLE. With the KidScreen Magazine reference, this article is close to meeting that standard. That is one article. The standard calls for multiple articles. Multiple means more than one. A book review is probably out there somewhere for one or more of his three books. That should do the trick under the applicable standard. Dcs002 (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above or Draftify to Draft:J. Hunter Johnson so that it can be worked on and improved. BOZ (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question for JHunterJ: As the subject of the article, I realize your contribution must be very limited in scope, and I thank you for keeping it that way so far. However, it is appropriate for you, if you wish to do so, to point us in the direction of reliable source material that might help us decide what to do in this proceeding. Can you tell us if the seven articles and 25 reviews listed in the article section titled Bibliography were all written by you? If so, do you know of any other author who has cited any of these articles or reviews, and in what publications they were cited? According to WP:AUTO#IFEXIST and WP:AUTOPROB, contributing in this way to this discussion is permitted, and IMO would be quite helpful. Thank you. (This must be awkward to watch. :/ ) Dcs002 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ: Are there any books, magazine or newspaper articles in a print-only format that cover you directly? This is the crux of the matter.Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles and reviews were all written by me, yes. I think Ken Hite may have cited "Barnstorming Infinity Unlimited"; I'll see if I can verify, perhaps this weekend at Gen Con. I'm not aware of any cites of any other articles or reviews. There was an article in a local paper ("Centerville resident develops word game on the web" by Danielle Coots in the Centerville-Washington Times, June 20, 2013, p. 10A) that covered me directly, in connection with another online puzzle-game, Quizgle. It was republished online, but on a site that is apparently on WP's blacklis. Googling "New internet word game now available" coots will bring it up. I think the previous print-only article was from when I was in high school, "Fort Lawn twins prepare for challenge of college" by Hal Hewell in The Herald (Rock Hill), March 26, 1987, p. 3A -- using my name "Jeff Johnson", and before I started any of the gaming work. Well, that an an engagement announcement. :-) It's not terribly awkward to watch, really. I've known my notability is on the razor's edge of acceptability -- I'm happy that this AfD is focused on (and driven by) that, where at least one of the previous ones was not. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JHunterJ. I'll have a look around. I have been focusing on just adding notability content to the article, and it looks kinda disorganized and lopsided ATM (reviews of your GURPS books are a lot easier to find than sources for the rest of your work), but my priority has been to establish notability based on your body of creative work first and then nice-up the article. (A sloppy article is not a viable candidate for deletion like a non-notable one is.) Hopefully some of these sources will help balance things. Dcs002 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got the Coots article. Nice to have a game review instead of another book review - more balance :) Dcs002 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I traced the history of the article and found the user, User:Turlo Lomon, who originally posted the Bibliography section, with all those magazine articles and reviews. I posted the following to his/her talk page:

On 13 September, 2007, you added an extensive bibliography section to the article J. Hunter Johnson. Can you please join the deletion discussion here, or can you at least say where the items in this section came from? They remain unsourced. The discussion is centered around the subject's notability, and having more information, especially about the articles and reviews, would be helpful. Thank you.

User:Turlo Lomon hasn't made any edits since last February (6 months ago), so I don't know how often he comes around anymore, but I thought I'd invite him/her. Dcs002 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, Johnson is the sole author or co-author of the three books listed in the Bibliography, confirmed on GoogleBooks, published by Steve Jackson Games or Psi (ISBN's available). I have also verified him as the author of the first article listed, "'The Much-Maligned Will', Pyramid, Issue #9", from an online pdf of the table of contents. If the rest of these publications turn out to be similarly verified, that alone speaks volumes for his notability. These are not self-publications. They still have to be discussed in other sources, as far as I know, to confirm notability, but it's a pretty wide net with this many publications. Dcs002 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This discussion isn't as close as a !vote count would make it appear. There's little approaching WP:IRS applied to the page and a reasonable search doesn't find anything much better. As pointed out by the nominator, the only source that looks at all reliable (Kidscreen) doesn't even mention the subject. The standard for WP:GNG is significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Nothing like that here. I don't see any assertions above which refute the nominator's statement that the even more stringent WP:BLP isn't met by the sources applied. I would have no objection to draftifying, but as it exists, there's nothing here to keep. Even a presumption of possible notability via WP:PEOPLE requires some sourcing for verification. We don't have anything meeting the standard. BusterD (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In my opinion only, not making any accusation or implying anything about process participants to date, I'd like to state that I hope we wouldn't consider keeping articles factoring in that the subject happens to be a wikipedian. It is very bad form indeed for us to retain an insufficiently cited and sourced BLP, and especially so if the subject happens to be an administrator on English Wikipedia. High standards for sourcing on BLPs are necessary for the most excellent reasons. BTW, I have nothing but admiration for the subject's body of work and publisher plus his fine record of behavior on Wikipedia. With adequate found sources, I'd be leaning the other way in this process, but given what we have found, delete. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, please understand WP has policies and guidelines that supersede any individual's opinion, and please put your personal bias in that perspective. Please refer to WP:WWA for information on Wikipedians with articles about them. (Johnson was not on the list on that page, nor is he required to be, but I just added him anyway.) Johnson is one of many Wikipedians with articles about them, and he has not tried to influence the article about him or this discussion. (If he had, the article would probably be in much better shape, I'm afraid.) See also WP:AUTO. There are guidelines in place, and Hunter Johnson has not violated any of them. The fact that someone is notable should not and does not block them from participating in the Free Encyclopedia. It does, however, limit the effective participation that person can have in the articles about themselves, as well as discussions like this one. I have asked him for sourcing suggestions in this discussion, which is in keeping with WP:AUTO#IFEXIST and WP:AUTOPROB. He has not responded yet.

I don't know if you read my comments above that address your other concerns on point. WP:N is satisfied for articles about persons when they meet WP:PEOPLE (and this article is very close right now to that mark), and when there are no BLP violations (I see none here). Not sure if you missed that part of this discussion, but those points have been covered. The subject does not need to be referred to in the article if his body of work is referred to, according to WP:PEOPLE. (See WP:CREATIVE, standard 3, on that page.) You may not agree with my comments here, but please consider them, and consider reading up (meaning posts above these down here). Dcs002 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, User:Dcs002, and don't attempt to personalize this discussion. I come to this process with no bias, and have clearly identified my personal opinion, separating such from my delete assertion intentionally. I have zero objection to the subject's behavior related to this pagespace, and have made no assertion of wrongdoing. Already I have read the entire discussion to this point, but based on my reading, I contend that my delete assertion is more firmly grounded in policy than any keep assertion listed above. BLP policy supersedes any presumption of notability based on more subjective guidelines like WP:CREATIVE. The need to protect living persons from potentially incorrect or damaging information requires much greater weight than the need to include unsourced relatively minor authors in an online encyclopedia. I suspect that if the subject of this page were asked directly about this priority, he would agree 100%. As it is, I suspect that editor is wisely avoiding the clash of this discussion, not only distancing himself from any potential COI in thus process, but also avoiding any appearance of COI. BusterD (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding! BusterD, I understand your comment now, and I'm sorry I misunderstood it in the first place. (No wonder I came off like I was attacking you!) You meant that you hoped we didn't factor in a bias to keep an article because the subject is a Wikipedian, right? I misread that as you hoped that, given that he is a Wikipedian (i.e., factoring that into your opinion), you hoped we would not keep the article. I'll go around and strike my comments based on that misunderstanding. I hope you can believe it was an honest mistake. Dcs002 (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apology. People have been telling me a lot lately that my comments are coming across as personal. I don't mean it that way, and I am definitely trying as a person to write more carefully. What I meant by bias was what you said in your comment, after your !vote. Specifically, "I'd like to state that I hope we wouldn't consider keeping articles..." Even though that was not part of your consideration, you put that into this discussion, a discussion concerning the deletion of an article. Why? What bearing does that opinion have on this discussion? That is my concern. I did not mean to impugn the integrity of your !vote with my comment regarding bias, only to counter it as an assertion within the scope of this discussion.

As far as BLP is concerned, can you say where the violation is? I see no NPOV, V, or NOR issues. WP:BLP says, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (Emphases in the original.) I see none of these issues in the article - no quotations, no material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and no contentious material (as defined above or otherwise). There is no criticism or praise (though I would like to find a review of one or two of his books or games to include). I see no overstatement nor understatement. This is neither an attack page nor a hoax. It contains no gossip, no misuse of primary sources, and no self-published sources other than those written by the subject as sources for non-contentious material. There are no issues of privacy in the article. There is no material that may adversely affect the subject's reputation. (This next one is important so I am bolding it.) The article was not created after March 18, 2010, meaning the standard (under WP:BLPDEL) "must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion" does not apply.

In short, there are no BLP violations. There are no grounds under the BLP policy for deletion at all. If there were BLP violations, we shouldn't be talking about them here. WP:BLP says unequivocally that they should be deleted immediately, without discussion. I just went down the entire WP:BLP page, one item at a time, in that previous paragraph. Nothing in this article violates WP:BLP, nor does it satisfy deletion under WP:BLP. This discussion is about notability, not BLP. Can you demonstrate anything to the contrary? Dcs002 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the problem. WP:N is not satisfied. I appreciate that you're arguing vociferously for keeping this article, but as Buster has said, I can't really see any refutation of my nomination that is based in policy. Forgive me for saying so and please don't take it personally, but your argument for keeping seems to be taking a very novel approach. I don't see any accusations from him regarding Mr. Johnson, what I do see is a reasonable request that we treat this article as we would all articles and avoid playing favorites. It's not unreasonable for any of us to lean towards keeping an article about a fellow Wikipedian, but we have to be objective and we have to follow WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. I think it was a good idea to ask Johnson if he knows of any offline references, it's likely nobody would know if they exist better than he would. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at my WP contributions will show I am relatively new at AfD discussions. As a noob to this process (though not to WP), I have been adhering as strictly as possible to WP policies and guidelines. Everything I am offering as reasons to keep and as arguments against deletion is rooted in these policies and guidelines. I am very careful about citing these policies and guidelines as well. Since I have started to participate in these AfD discussions, I have been very, very surprised at how routine it seems for Wikipedians to follow the inertia of what is normally done rather than consulting policies and guidelines. I don't think I have ever seen WP:DELETE followed in the few discussions I've been involved with, and that deeply troubles me. Is my approach really so novel if I strictly adhere to policies and guidelines? Yes, we should treat this article as we would any other article, by following the guidelines. (The ~~comment I referred to as "bias" concerned me, as does the~~ "disgraceful" comment in the article's edit history, suggesting to me that this article is not getting special treatment, but unduly harsh treatment.) WP guidelines tell us what we should do when WP:N is not established, and it is not to delete the article at this stage. For example, WP:BIO says:

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:

* Look for sources yourself

* Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources.

* Put the {{notability|biographies}} tag on the article to notify other editors.

* If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

The last two steps have not yet been taken. I see no sign of the second step having been taken either, and certainly no one has looked into the print articles and reviews, which no one here in this discussion seemed to know until yesterday whether they contained independent material.

Furthermore, under WP:DELETE, there are more guidelines that seem to be routinely ignored. Under WP:DEL-REASON on that page, reasons for deletion include "7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed," and "8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." I hear people arguing under #8, but I don't see how we can consider #8 if #7 hasn't been met. I see no evidence for, and no one has claimed to have conducted, a thorough search, including the print materials listed in the bibliography. Again on that page, WP:ATD says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The only editing I have seen on this page in the past year and a half has been this AfD, a COI tag added with a "disgraceful" comment, a minor edit regarding an internal link, and edits I have recently made. (The COI tag is inappropriate because Johnson has not been a major contributor. I have therefore removed it, though of course I have left the notable Wikipedian tag on the talk page.) The article has no stub tag, and I see no requests for help or expansion from anyone, let alone WikiProject Role-playing games.

These variances from WP policies and guidelines, and I have listed a lot of them, seem to be moving this (and other) articles toward deletion by short-cutting the process. Why is my approach of adhering to these policies and guidelines so novel? Am I really that unusual in trying so hard to follow them? Dcs002 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below (and look at the article again) for additional sources I've found. Improving articles like this is very doable (and it follows WP:DELETE policy if it is done before the nomination to delete), especially if we share the workload. If this passes the notability test now (and I see no reason why it shouldn't), it will be the second time in the past two weeks that I have taken the initiative with an article like this when no one else was willing, though many were !voting to delete. (A third wound up with no consensus, but several of us are now working on ways to make the article satisfactory to all.) Wouldn't you have strong feelings about deletion policies and guidelines too if this was your experience in your first three weeks of participating in AfD discussions? Dcs002 (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found references to two independent reviews for one of Johnson's books (GURPS Monsters), and I have posted a notice asking for participation on the WikiProject Role-playing games talk page. One review is in a print magazine (Games Unplugged issue 17) that is supposed to be available online but the link is timing out, but the score from the review and the necessary information to identify the print issue is posted on rpg.net. The second review is posted in full on rpg.net, written by a guy named Craig Oxbrow, a writer, blogger, minor filmmaker, and artist, depending on which part of the net you're looking at. Dcs002 (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, please see my apology above. I completely misunderstood one of your comments, which explains a lot of what appeared to be hostility. I have stricken my responses based on that mistake. Dcs002 (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now sourced four independent reviews for two of Johnson's books and a context piece in USA Today, describing the impact of Cartoon Network's online games in the context of the total online kids' market (#2 behind Nick, but ahead of Disney at the time), with a mention of the upcoming gToons in that context. The USA Today piece isn't enough on its own, but with these reviews I'm finding it's really filling out the picture of notability nicely per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Please have a look at the additions I've made in the past several hours if you believe the subject lacks notability, and please reconsider. These are just the sources I have found online (and I'm not an RPG fan). I want to reiterate that print resources most likely will contain more - certainly the complete Games Unplugged review at the very least. Dcs002 (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I appreciate User:Dcs002's acceptance of my good faith, and that user's industry (while a little wall-of-texty) has borne fruit. I'll confess the page looks much better this morning than it did last night. I do consider GamesUnplugged a reliable source upon which to anchor pagespace on game product and the USA Today link would be quite a nice addition to the Cartoon Orbit page. However, I still feel the page lacks direct coverage of the subject. At this point, I'm leaning towards draftifying. I've explained my rationale on my talk page here. I'd be interested in hearing more from editors who have not yet contributed to this discussion. BusterD (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I just added content from a review & interview article from Examiner.com, a website blacklisted by WP. I don't know exactly how to cite the source in that case. ~~I followed the web template, but I had to remove the url. I put it in a note next to the inline cit with a blacklist warning.~~ I used the news template and left the URL out. The title will bring it right up in that domain. What is the appropriate way to cite a blacklisted website here? Dcs002 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request to have the source website itself whitelisted for purposes of this article. Dcs002 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book review could be used to establish the notability of the book, but not the author unless it covers the author directly in enough detail. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In brief, I have explained how every bit of what I argue here is policy- and guideline-based, and again, your statement is at odds with what I keep reading in WP:BIO. But Johnson is not only notable for his creative works themselves. The sources tell us his gToons game had a significant impact on a major media market.

Here are the "wall-of-texty" details (an apt description):

This article can be used to establish the subject's notability if it is one of multiple, independent reviews of his work. There are four independent book reviews already. The article I was referring to is one of the two independent game reviews, intended to balance the article. WP:CREATIVE, criterion 3, says a creative professional is likely to be notable if he has a body of work that has been the subject of multiple, independent periodical articles or reviews. So far I count six of them that are now sourced in the article: Longworth, Coots, Snyder, Oxbrow, Hite, and Games Unplugged. If it were half that many it would still be multiple, independent reviews. Meeting this criterion does not guarantee that a subject should be included, but if the guideline uses the phrase "likely to be notable" if they meet the standard, can you tell me what differentiates Hunter Johnson from other creative professionals who are "likely" to meet notability requirements via this criterion?
But that's not Johnson's only claim to notability. A weak case can be made (but added to the above) that he also meets WP:CREATIVE criterion 2 as a creative professional who is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The USA Today piece shows the state of the kids' networks websites and children's collectible digital trading cards before Hunter Johnson's gToons turned them into a head-to-head game, and Kidscreen shows the state of the market a month after gToons was introduced. Johnson's gToons came out and proved to be an effective way to promote Cartoon Network (per Kidscreen). Then the leader of that major media market sector, Nickelodeon, announced its plans to use digital children's trading cards for online children's gaming (instead of just collecting and trading) to promote its TV network. It would be untenable to argue this case on its own, but add this impact on the kids' networks online market to the impact of his growing body of creative works and I think Johnson more than "likely" satisfies [WP:BIO]].

I am sorry for coming across so frustrated and pushy and, well, probably crabby. I do hope you understand that it's frustrating for me to spend so much time learning WP policies and guidelines before participating in these AfD discussions, and then to see how they apparently are not being applied in many of these discussions. WP:CREATIVE, criterion 3, "likely" satisfies WP:N, but you and BusterD both still insist that a focus on the person's works is not enough, that the creative professional himself must also be covered in the sources, regardless of what the WP:BIO page has to say. I just don't get it. Remember, this article was created before March 18, 2010, so some criteria are different from newer articles (no BLP requirement to say something about the person and then source it with an RS). My frustration is sincere, and it is not anger, nor is it directed at you guys, who have both been very patient in your assuming my good faith. I just want to know why what WP:BIO says isn't sufficient in this case where the subject of the article and the sourcing IMO clearly exceed the standards spelled out on that page. Dcs002 (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as satisfying WP:CREATIVE. Appropriate sources for a standalone article have been found. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @JHunterJ and others: The author of the most recent review and interview article that appears on examiner.com (a WP blacklisted site) has sent me a copy of the original print article as it appeared in the Centerville-Washington Times, so that content can now be sourced properly. It is an interview with Hunter and a review of Quizgle.com. Dcs002 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion seems to have stagnated - 9 days since someone besides me posted anything. The !votes, by my count, are 4 Keep, 1 Keep or Draftify, and 3 Delete. The article has been expanded with several more 3rd party sources (four independent reviews and a mention with context in USA Today) since this discussion began, and the only !vote that was cast after that expansion was Keep. Let's close this, either as keep or no consensus. Let it be listed again some time in the future if it still seems to merit deletion, and let's have a new discussion based on the article that's actually there now instead of the one that existed when this AfD discussion began. Dcs002 (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.