Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Spencer (video 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. Sandstein 05:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Spencer (video game designer)[edit]

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

A video game designer. Can't find any reliable references about him. I only can find his name listed as one of the many developers on some games. Bgwhite (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for him at MobyGames http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,205890/ provides reliable evidence of his work as MobyGames only allows entries that are verified by evidence such as credit videos, screenshots or manuals. The LinkedIn profile for him http://www.linkedin.com/in/spence2000 also provides further evidence of his work from co-worker reccomendations.

This provides reliable references not only that he exists, but also that his works can be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.161.239 (talk) 10:12, 24 July 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) 19:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, The moby games link can't be used since the Video Game Wikiproject has listed that source as being completely unreliable on the grounds that the site is user submitted with no evidence of editorial oversite. It did state this the site could be used for a prilimary search for obscure games as a starting off point but it can't be used as a citation in an article. I don't know about the other link though.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:ELPEREN, linkedin links are never to be allowed as a reference and generally should not be in the external link section. Bgwhite (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case delete since with the removal of those two sites the article has no sources at all.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"no evidence of editorial oversite."? Moby Games requires physical evidence of all information listed on the site to be approved by qualified approvers. Without evidence, it is not accepted on the site. That's why mobygames is a reliable source of factual information verified by an independant 3rd party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.164.45 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to support this since the relevant wikiproject (WP:VG) has deemed it to not be reliable or have any editorial oversite. Not to mention there is no other citations in the article so there is no third party coverage.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable BIO. Profile page or credit listing is not really an indication of notability, no matter how reliable the publisher is. I don't see any other broad coverage on the subject to pass WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant guidelines: Sources should be "Independent of the subject". "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. It is common for Games professionals to create their own mobygames page and cannot be assumed to be an independent source (hence why it's listed as non suitable source). Similarly, linkedin pages are always created by the subject.

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed: Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in History of violence against LGBT people in the United States). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. This person is not well known, famous or notorious. There are many games designers more famous than this person without wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The user who created this page has no list of other created pages, the account was created solely for the creation of this page. This makes it likely the user is the subject of the page and is using wikipedia as a means of self promotion. This is strictly against guidelines. 46.208.211.1 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I googled him and the article appears to be genuine, however I couldn't find anything that demonstrates he's notable. Szzuk (talk) 22:17, 7 August 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.