Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Vasel

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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 15:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vasel[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion - subject not notable. All the references seem self-referential. Wikipedia notability guide mentions that a subject needs to be mentions in multiple, major media to be considered notable. This subject has simply self-published a number of reviews online. 96.51.198.182 (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination. ansh666 03:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BIO. This piece on Wired.com starts with "If you like board games, you’ve probably seen (or at least heard of) Tom Vasel." Then there were this other one from Wired (which also uses him as a source). Then Rock Paper Shotgun (which also makes frequent mention of him and his reviews in their Cardboard Children series, e.g. "the great Tom Vasel" here, "my favourite board game reviewer", here, "my hero Tom Vasel"), This profile at scottking.info. The kickstarter for his 10th season brought in 134k. There seems to be an unusual level of respect and adoration for this guy (I'd never heard of him), and I'm not going to link to a ton of unreliable sources but many small gaming sites seem to treat his reviews as an event (like that food/arts critic who has a big influence on the success or failure of a restaurant or play). That's the impression I'm getting anyway. It's not entirely clear to me whether it should be The Dice Tower or Vasel with the WP article, but it can always be moved to the former. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - the article at Wired is a blog entry, not a serious media article. It looks like a fluff piece that could even be a personal friend of Tom's, or perhaps even a sock puppet. Rock-Paper-Shotgun is also a blog-type site, not a serious media outlet. I'm not seeing any real serious mention of his work in bonafide media. Is Wikipedia at the point where bloggers can mention each other and thereby qualify each other for article status here?96.51.198.182 (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: 96.51.198.182 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Yes, but it is a blog at Wired (see WP:NEWSBLOG). There are lots of ways of assessing reliable sources and there are gray areas that vary based on context. Wired blogs help to establish notability. Likewise RPS is one of the most well-known game websites and thus contributes to notability. The "maybe a friend of his wrote it," since it's not based on anything, doesn't affect the significance of the source, of course. Also, your nomination for deletion is your vote, so which you can and should comment, you can do that by adding a bolded "comment" to start a line rather than "delete". --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the duplicate !vote above from the nominator. Only one !vote is allowed, which your deletion nomination is considered as. However, feel free to comment in the discussion all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per above discussion, WP:NEWSBLOG actually says "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Note that the people being cited as sources are not even identifying themselves as "professionals" in any sense of the word, much less each other. If no one with any credibility or credentials are noticing this guy, how is he notable?198.161.2.211 (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual to have two anonymous users with IP addresses that geolocate to the same place argue the letter of a particular policy against AfD precedent... I'll wait for others to weigh in before continuing the thread, compiling sources, etc. as I have a hard time seeing this as anything but an easy keep. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet culture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It almost sounds like the delete voters (or voter) are hypothesizing that there's a conspiracy by Wired to manufacture notability for this person, and that anyone who thinks he actually is well-known is simply mistaken. Let's consider the simpler hypothesis that Tom Vasel is notable and well-known and that's why he's written about. rspεεr (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative hypothesis would be that Tom Vasel does not meet Wikipedia's notability threshold which is why there's so little information about him in reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject is a math teacher in Florida who is a board game enthusiast and has a website with a bi-weekly podcast where he reviews board games. His passion for the subject may be laudable but it has not made him notable. Passionate people who freely provide information and show deep bench of knowledge on their subjects can be well known WITHOUT meeting GNG because simply being well-known does not equal notability. The Wired article (blog or not) does not speak to the subject as an expert in the field or his notability - the article is a fundraiser for a charity dedicated to his deceased son. EBY (talk) 05:22, 3 November 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Tom Vasel is very well known in the hobby board game community. He has founded the Dice Tower Network and has helped to bring people into the hobby. Hobbes543 (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be true but doesn't address the concerns over his notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:26, 22 November 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After looking at the links on the article and in this AFD, I cannot consider GNG to be met. The sources are too borderline and provide little in the way of in-depth analysis anyway. As for being "well-known", there are many people who are widely-recognised in certain circles and yet would not fit our definition of notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found by Rhododendrites meet the GNG--we've got sources largely about this person and his work that are reliable and independent. I'm good. Notability on Wikipedia is about sourcing, not being an expert in a field. We've got the sourcing. It's not clear to me why these sources are boarderline--a column in Wired is a RS. Hobit (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not meet GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:20, 22 November 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.