Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Desborough (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 keep. Concerns about this article can be addressed through editing improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Desborough (game designer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are either blogs, press releases, or from the subject. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO criterion 1, major award winner. And yes, Origins awards counts. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, I figured WaPo was a safe enough bet, but do you think anything else that was removed from the article in these edits was worth keeping? BOZ (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, I hadn't seen all that. I don't see that the WaPo article directly bears on this subject, but I've stayed as far away from GamerGate as possible. It does look like there's enough edit warring over the article to suggest that an SPI might be in order, but I'll let someone more familiar with the topic report it if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments from Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As this needs more citations. CastJared (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This article is well-cited, and shouldn't have the "Needs Citation" template on it.

Further, those citing BLP are misrepresenting what it says. Citing information in a neutral manner isn't forbidden by BLP. Simply stating that the author was dropped from publishing platforms isn't "contentious", it's a simple statement of already verified source.

Literally, Don't Bite the Newbies. This new user really was being very fervent in their editing of a decade-old topic, and appears to be trying in Good Faith to present a balance of information. Going after the new contributor by using reporting violations the new user didn't even know they were committing, and calling *them* the disruptive one is just horribly, horribly poor form.

The repeated wholesale reversion of other editor's work with little or no explanation, based on minor issues with format, method, or knowledge of how to edit seems a whole lot more like just punitive hunting down of the editor. They literally went after the newbie going out of their way to have them banned when it's possible they didn't know where to even see the discussions about it.

From all appearances in the Edit History, this nothing more than a rude experienced editor who was Edit Warring with a newbie wanting to delete the newbie's page/work.

The proposer, in this case is **literally** the person causing the problem and Edit Warring. That's not only a conflict of interest, it's not Good Faith, and shouldn't be permitted.

This seems more like Deletionism, wanting to remove an article about a person with a bad reputation and who may be seen as a bad actor in the industry, and

There's not a valid reason arguing against Notability. The subject literally has major industry awards.

IcarusATB (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved my reply to your talk page, other than to reiterate my request that you strike your personal attacks.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BubbaJoe123456 Is the edit summary on this revision accurate? If so, please explain why you believe it to be accurate. If not, please explain why it's not. Regardless, I'll note that this is the last edit prior to you nominating this article for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per all editors said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking into this myself, I actually find that the article subject meets WP:ANYBIO #1 as a major award winner. I’d also suggest that while the article could use more citations, the citations that are there make a strong case for WP:NOTABILITY and satisfying WP:GNG. If the article subject failed notability criteria, there would be reasonable grounds for deletion. However, notability is established as I’ve explained above. Shawn Teller (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2023 (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.