Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Barnett (video game designer)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barnett (video game designer)[edit]

Paul Barnett (video game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiple issues: Limited notability WP:GNG WP:NTEMP, Poorly sourced references WP:SOURCES WP:QS WP:DEADREF, CV like WP:COI, Poorly written, Random Trivia, lacks independence/autobiographical WP:COI. See Talk page for more details TheEvery (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - rescue - A lot of the issues you mention are about the writing style and, therefore, can be fixed. The main issue for me here is notability - is Paul Barnett notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. A great deal of the sources used are problematic - they're either unreliable or are reliable but do not provide sufficient notability. It does seem that this and this, however, are reliable enough and provide notability. I think that this article needs rescue (and I will tag as such), but not deletion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do those references count as primary sources? Is that interview just self promotion? TheEvery (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! I'm not sure, he's best known for Warhammer Online, however in less than a decade that will be forgotten along with Paul. Not "encyclopaedic" enough. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary TheEvery 194.74.155.52 (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notability is not temporary doesn't mean the subject has to have ongoing coverage. It means that if he's notable now, he will continue to be notable. Even if he's forgotten and never given additional coverage again in the future. So the question is "Is he notable now?" Reach Out to the Truth 14:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Interesting - how do you test for that? I know games designers/producers/directors, with far more impressive careers than Paul that are not in Wikipedia. Should they be, probably not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.155.52 (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to apply: "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Is his career notable, or just the part where he worked at Mythic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.155.52 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really an event, there doesn't seem to be any event here. But his position at Mythic alone would indeed not satisfy notability requirements. To establish notability, we'd need coverage of him, not just stuff he happened to be involved with. I haven't gone searching yet, but the article in its current form is extremely lacking in that regard. If we can't find significant coverage of Barnett himself, the article will likely be deleted. That is the real problem, he doesn't seem to meet the GNG at all, regardless of NOTTEMP. Reach Out to the Truth 16:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpret the notability is not temporary policy to mean that if someone is regarded to be notable at one period in time, they are always considered notable. I think it both prevents someone in a small news story from being considered notable but also allows notability for people who do something that is notable but then falls out general coverage. It seems to me that Paul Barnett has had significant coverage, so that would qualify him to be notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is where I disagree. You need to prove significant coverage. By significant I mean more so than any average head games designer. Any mainstream media coverage? TheEvery (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked into the WP:DEADREF issue and found only one dead link, which I've now tagged. Reach Out to the Truth 16:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG[edit]

Why does this article meet the general notability guideline? Are there any references in "newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals"? (see WP:GNG#cite_note-1) Is there anything he appears in that does not qualify as self promotion (or of the company he represents)? WP:SPIP TheEvery (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post, RockPaperShotgun, OnRPG, Joystiq, Joystiq 2, Gamasutra. These are not simple interviews about the latest gaming update; they are commentary about the person himself. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are much better, but I'm still not sure that he satisfies the GNG. Perhaps you should consider re-writing the article based on the facts in those articles, if it survives deletion. Washington Post and Gamasutra are definitely reliable sources, but I'm not so sure about Massively or Joystiq. Is there enough with those to qualify as notable. I think if we can find a few more of the quality of the former, the article should stay. 194.74.155.52 (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you not believe that those sources satisfy the GNG? That seems like more than enough to me. I understand and agree with your point that the article is not written well; however, I do not think that this merits deletion. Rather, the article needs to be rescued and improved, using the sources that have been found. I will work on rescuing the article later. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some extensive changes to the article now in an attempt to rescue it. I rewritten lots of it to keep it in line with the MOS, as well as policies - particularly WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PEACOCK. I've also removed a lot of the unreliable sources that were in the article and added all of the reliable sources that have been found during this discussion. It's still not perfect - I've not managed to use inline citations for a few of the sources and I'm still not quite happy with how it's written - however, I believe that it now sufficiently asserts notability and is more in keeping with some of the policies it was having problems with before. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, this may be the most appropriate action. My objection is that the vast majority of Paul's peers will go unrecognised, as they don't have the EA/Mythic PR machine. TheEvery (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but it's out of our control. Though there may be many other game designers who deserve notability, only a few are actually notable. We need to be neutral and so we really have no option but to accept that those with strong backing will end up more notable. I don't always like it, but we have no real alternative. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just alter the ever changing notability guidelines to include a list of what makes a game designer notable. Some people right now, insanely enough, believe even if you made a billion dollar earning game, that doesn't make you notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dream_Focus#Making_a_billion_dollar_game_doesn.27t_make_you_notable.] Dream Focus 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced he is notable. The only articles that really support notability are the one in RockPaperShotgun and the Gamasutra one. And the Gamasutra one is really, really borderline. He was interviewed by the Washington Post. That's cool, but I'm not sure it supports notability per the GNG, but does per common sense. The rest of the articles don't really have any support for notability, and since the ones that do are so paltry it's hard to say this article should be kept. If he really was that notable, people would be writing about him. He'd be all the over the place. I'm not seeing that. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage has been found. Dream Focus 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    specifically what coverage? why is the coverage good enough? TheEvery (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of the coverage that has been provided is accessible from the list of sources on the article. Seeing as you are finding the quality of the coverage a problem, would you like to tell us which source you have an issue with, please? At present, just telling us that you do not think the sources are reliable or of good quality without any reasoning is unhelpful. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref1 is an interview, Ref2 is PR, ref3 is dead, ref4 is an interview, ref5 is an interview, ref6 deals with the video game not the person, ref7 is very short but perhaps supports notability, ref8 is promotional material, ref9 is an interview podcast. The only one that supports notability is Ref7. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews of people count as notable coverage of course. The first one is in the Washington Post titled First Person Singular: Paul Barnett, creative director of a video-game company [1] How does that not prove the man is notable? Dream Focus 20:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? Is that a primary source? Is it independent of the subject? Just one article, which is an interview, probably isn't enough. 194.74.155.52 (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources are already mentioned in the article and above in the discussion. And it is clearly a reliable source, third party, independent of the subject. Dream Focus 08:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? 194.74.155.52 (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ones listed in the article. Dream Focus 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not count interviews as supporting notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. They are primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.155.52 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, in this case, they do. They seem to be from reliable, third-party sources. If they were self-published interviews, I'd agree; they are not. An interview is not a primary source, as it is not published by the subject. What is it about interviews that you believe does not establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable publications often bring out heads of PR departments to discuss the latest add-on to the new gizmo. I don't think this makes that person notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those of you who don't know what primary sources are, look it up at WP:PRIMARY. Interviews are NOT a primary sources. Dream Focus 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OR: "Further examples of primary sources include .. interviews .." Interviews have always been primary sources. They can be reliable, if published by a reliable entity and there's no reason to believe the interviewee is dishonest. But they are still primary, because the material comes from the subject themselves. Personally, I consider reliable interviews to further subject to pass WP:GNG, because a reliable entity has bothered to interview them in the first place. So that has to be indicative of "media attention". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just last week that was removed and re-added back again[2]. Oh well, my mistake. Anyway, I agree, interviews have always counted as significant coverage, and thus pass WP:GNG Dream Focus 09:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG States, ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources" TheEvery (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources by Odie5533; cannot see how this does not pass WP:GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG States, ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources" TheEvery (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Books[edit]

I've searched google books and I can't find anything referencing him. Whereas if you look for Raph Koster you can find plenty. Raph's article is shorter than Paul's. Raph is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEvery (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - Notable game designer who has worked on high-profile games, and has enough sourcing, from reliable sources, to be kept. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The blanket statements on interviews at various pages are wrong (read the various talk pages). Enough sources exist for this subject. So keep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Barnett_(video_game_designer)&oldid=1070676927"