Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (5th nomination)

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 redirect to Jagex. While it may not numerically be clear, the weight of the policy-based arguments is towards redirection, which raise concerns the keep !voters did not particularly address (mainly over the depth of coverage actually about the article's subject). Content can be merged from history. The idea that AFDs from twelve years ago can just be assumed to reflect the opinion of the community today is fundamentally incorrect, as is the idea that simply being associated with something that's rather notable lends notability without coverage to back it up. As a relatively controversial AFD that I do not see my close changing on, if users should wish to contest it, they can go straight to DRV without approaching me first-- Eddie891 Talk Work 02:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gower[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Non-notable businessperson .The references are routine coverage, or placement on a list. It is possible to be notable by being extremely wealthy, but not if it's just 566th in Britain. The previous discussions were over 12 years ago, when standards were much lower and much more erratic. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The last three discussions all resulted in Keep and so it is vexatious to try this again. The nomination indicates a lack of understanding of the subject who is not notable just for being especially rich but for being the principal architect and creator of an outstandingly successful MMORPG which was recognised by Guinness as being the world's largest – comparable in size with Wikipedia, with over 200 million accounts. When the nomination talks of low and erratic standards, it should start with itself per WP:SAUCE as it is a blatant failure of WP:BEFORE and contains absurd errors like "112 years". It is clear that the policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." and the nomination makes no effort to address this. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last AFD was twelve years ago. I don't think it's "vexatious" forum shopping to renominate again after this long. Also, it's not a delete reason, but when DGG of all people nominates something for deletion, you pay attention. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, asserting that this nomination qualifies for WP:SPEEDYKEEP on the grounds that it is disruptive is such a patently bad-faith reading of the nomination that I think you owe DGG an apology. TompaDompa (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page in question has existed since 2004 and has had over 1200 editors! And then there's all the editors who participated in all those previous discussions. This constitutes a substantial status quo. And it still doesn't appear that there's a consensus to delete this page; maybe just to merge to another. So, why are we having a deletion discussion? The nomination does not provide any new fact or reasoning – it just wants to try again in the hope of getting a different result. In doing so, the nomination explicitly criticises all those many editors for their low and erratic standards. So, per WP:SAUCE, just as the article and its editors may be criticised, then so too may the nomination be criticised. TompaDompa then criticises my !vote and so it goes. See also WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Andrew Davidson: Of course you're allowed to criticize the nomination, nobody's disputing that. What I take issue with is that you accused it of being disruptive, which is a point you did not address. And now, you say that the nomination explicitly criticises all those many editors for their low and erratic standards, which means one of three things: (1) you didn't read the nomination properly, (2) you don't know what the word "explicitly" means, or (3) you are deliberately misrepresenting DGG. I'm not criticizing your stance on what should be done with the article under discussion here, I'm criticizing your WP:CONDUCT. It's not like I'm the only one to do so, either—I'm the fifth person (after Johnpacklambert, Namcokid47, Reywas92, and Axem Titanium) to specifically criticize your conduct at this discussion. I don't think an WP:APOLOGY is too much to ask for here. TompaDompa (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack the indepth coverage of him in articles to show an actual passing of GNG. The last deletion discussion was 12 years ago, our inclusion criteria have changed an awful lot since then, so default endorsing the decision of 12 years ago is not advised. The attacks on the editor who nominated this article for deletion are the type of par for the course no holds bar character assinations that are regularly carried on by those who want to keep Wikipedia covering as many marginal people as possible. They need to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacking in depth coverage. non notable business person. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Jagex for lacking notability. The latest deletion discussion prior to this was from 2009, and as Johnpacklambert as stated above, our site policies have changed considerably since then regarding the notability guidelines. This person simply lacks enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article. I am also rather disgruntled with how Andrew Davidson chose to use words like "blatant failure" in reference to the nominator, which goes against WP:CIVIL and is inappropriate for this discussion (or any discussion, really). Namcokid47 21:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The most recent AFD was 11 years ago and it's bad faith to accuse the nominator of disruption and even worse faith to attack the nominator for an obvious typo. Sources provide more coverage of Jagex and so a merge/redirect is appropriate. Reywas92Talk 00:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The creator of an extremely recognised MMORPG game with a lasting legacy and still relevant today. Definite keeper. Stuhunter83 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional A brief search found this reference which supports his notability. [1] Stuhunter83 (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for my typo, of 112 when I meant 12. And of course I would not have renominated if the previous AfDs had been recent--from 14 years ago when I started here I've tried to discourage rapid renominations-- they were quite common at the time, and they fortunately are no longer DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jagex: Per reasons above. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree per Andrew Davidson. Taung Tan (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he created a video game that has generated more than $1 billion in revenue and has been played by more than 100 million people?Miaminsurance (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 09:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect relevant info into Jagex; the subject clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG or merit a standalone article when there are better targets. Another AfD the better part of a decade after is not inappropriate, and helping to make a hit video game does not make oneself independently notable. If you're using archived links for job descriptions to try and source someone's bio, it's a pretty good indication that they don't merit their own page. Of the eleven current sources, at least six are primary or not independent—documentaries by the game's developers, the aforementioned job posting, minutes from board events, etc. We've got a plainly unreliable source (Retireat21). We've got a listicle from the Telegraph where Gower (along with his brother) are merely one of dozens of individuals, and a Guardian story about Runescape (not focused on Gower)—these are not WP:SIGCOV. That leaves the only source that specifically focuses on the brothers as the Develop source. What you end up with is three sentences you could cite in Jagex or Runescape about how it made the brothers rich. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per David Fuchs' arguments, couldn't say it better. There's a lot of INHERIT arguments in the Keeps. -- ferret (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew. There is no reason to delete this article. This person's coverage being "marginal" does not mean that it does not mean that it doesn't pass GNG or that this person's achivements are not notable. There have been several article on Gower on the first few pages of Google News, so procuring information on him is not that difficult either. Swordman97 talk to me 20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per D Fuchs. Notability is not inherited from a notable thing you made. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jagex. As others have pointed out, notability is not inherited, so the fact that he made a famous game says nothing about his own notability. None of the sources discuss *him* in meaningful detail separate from his game/company. Also, I'd remind folks in this thread to keep it civil as some of these comments against other users are quite silly and inappropriate. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jagex.  // Timothy :: talk  15:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jagex, his company, per Fuchs's source analysis. No notability independent from the company. czar 19:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. 5th discussion for such a low quality WP:VANITY/spammy WP:NBIO failure? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:VANITY states "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Please avoid using this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to the subjects of articles." That's what's happening here – a respectable high-achiever is being insulted. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

WP:NTEMP WP:NOTTEMPORARY 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody should feel a need to apologize for disagreeing, however strongly, with me at an AfD (or anywhere else). In fact , my deletion% at AfD is not all that high, about 70%, because I mostly nominate the edge cases and the ones most likely to be disputed, or , (as here) the ones where a former decision might warrant re-discussing. My purpose is often as much to get a decision as to get a deletion. My idea of the ideal result of an AfD is when the sources for an article get improved, and the article kept. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you waste everyone's time. Just use the talk page to discuss sources. Or sign up for Wikipedia's library card program and get access to newspapers.com and other places to search around yourself. Dream Focus 22:12, 15 March 2021 (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/Andrew_Gower_(5th_nomination)&oldid=1137564907"