Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (4th 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gower[edit]

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

Jagex and RuneScape are undoubtedly notable. However the founder and developer--despite wealth and appearing (with no significant information beyond the source of his wealth) in lists of wealthy people--is not. There is no significant coverage of him whatsoever--no significant biographical information beyond being a co-founder of Jagex and developer of RuneScape is mentioned in any reliable source. The fact that all but the barest of facts are sourced from non-independent sources is a clue to this. There is nothing here that is both worthy of reporting and not appropriate for the articles on the company or its products. ^Bongo_matic 08:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previous two AFDs were overwhelming keeps, and there's no indication that anything has changed to support a different result. The argument that the only available sources cover only what makes him notable, whether accurate or not, is particularly unconvincing to me. Wikipedia biographes are generally better when their contents are limited to material which reflects notability, rather than being bulked out with dating history, childhood incidents, and trivia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The argument that the only available sources cover only what makes him notable" is a (possibly deliberate) misrepresentation of the rationale. If I thought there was anything that made him notable, I would not have raised the AfD. The reliable independent coverage is of his wealth, noting its source—not inherently notable. ^Bongo_matic 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources suggest notability, plus there may be other available sourcing, which I will dig into a bit later. I believe that his company won an industry award recently, which helps build up notability. If we assume that "Creative Professionals" include founders/designers of games companies, than this award would give him notability under point 3 of WP:CREATIVE. The fact that there is no biographical information should not be a reason for deletion: Better to provide the reader with the information that exists in a stub, rather than have no information at all. Whilst I can see why this is on the borderline of "Keep" and "Delete" according to guidelines, I think that WP:IAR should be invoked here. The mission statement is to provide the end-user, the reader of Wikipedia, with reliable sourced information on notable topics. It is entirely possible that following the industry award Jagex Ltd recieved, some may be interested in the founder of the firm. We should not deny them the reliable sourced information currently available. I am by no means saying all the content of the article is perfect, but I believe it would be a net positive to the project goals to maintain and improve this article. --Taelus (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now expanded the article to mention the industry award won by his firm, and cleaned it up a little with an additional citebook. --Taelus (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah also, I found an additional source: The Daily Telegraph listed him and his brother as the 11th richest young entrepreneurs in the UK, this surely helps with notability concerns... (Added to the article too.) --Taelus (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of interviews and the like to establish notability, which is clear from the current consensus. While the page not having citations is an issue, poor quality is not grounds for deletion. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, well sourced, and even well written enough to be a C-class article. There are also other reliable sources out there that haven't been added. Why was this nominated? --Teancum (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2009 (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.